Talk:Digimon Adventure (2020 TV series)

Japanese vs dub names

Thus far, this article has been using the Japanese names for the children. If this is the case, shouldn't we also be using the Japanese names for the Digimon and other terms such as evolution instead of digivolution, chosen children instead of digidestined (if they end up using this later on), Omegamon instead of Omnimon, etc? I'm inclined to do this since there is no dub yet and we don't know if the dub is going to maintain the original series's dub changes since this is a brand new series and all. It would also be confusing to new viewers watching the simulcast to come here and see dub names for everything. --Aozf05 (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Aozf05: We are going by Crunchyroll's version because they are releasing the series in English subtitles. Toei has also been using "DigiDestined" and the English names for the Digimon on their promotional material. lullabying (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd say go by the names Toei uses since they are the ones actually making it, as Crunchyroll in this case is more site that streams the new episodes as they air. Again, this is just how I see this. Pissedgreenlink (talk) 06:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Crunchyroll uses Toei's English translations. lullabying (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Article rename proposal

The article title should be renamed. We should not call it "Digimon Adventure: (2020 TV series)" because there is no other article occupying the "Digimon Adventure:" namespace. Our options are as follows:

• Name the article "Digimon Adventure:" per WP:COMMONNAME as that is how most reporting (such as Anime News Network) is spelling it.
• Name the article "Digimon Adventure (2020 TV series)" with no colon per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Typographic effects as the colon is stylized and does not affect the series' pronunciation.

Any thoughts are appreciated. lullabying (talk) 04:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Well aside from the colon, the name is identical to the first anime series which might be a bit confusing for people looking them up. It might be more appropriate to go with option 2. --Aozf05 (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Aozf05: Thank you for your input. The article was originally named with option 2 until a user changed it, and I wanted to pitch a discussion so we can see what to rename it without more edit wars happening. I'll wait to see what other people have to say. lullabying (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • On another note, based on WP:MOVE#Technical restrictions, using a colon as the article title is discouraged and reason=: should be used. lullabying (talk) 04:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The latest edit added Ψ to the name. I thought it might be vandalism but upon checking on it, Psi was apparently the working title and when looking at the title card, the digivice with horns does look like Ψ. What do y'all think? --Aozf05 (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• • It's a special character and still a stylization so it should not be used in the article title per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Typographic effects. Also, no other reporting uses it right now. lullabying (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Episode summaries

@Lullabying: The edits I made to the plot summaries were reverted because they were supposedly more than 150 words and too flowery. Firstly, MOS:TVPLOT suggests a 200 word limit for serial plot summaries, not 150. And my summaries were all within limit, the longest being 158 words. Secondly, the edits were necessary because the summaries as they are now are lacking necessary detail, as per WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE. Taichi and Koshiro learn electronic systems are going haywire. And then they go to the nearby station. Why? If we're doing a plot summary, the entire plot of the episode hinges on Taichi wanting to go out and do something about the haywire electronics because his family is in danger. It's literally a summary of what the episode is about and not extraneous detail. The Argomon are hacking into the US military. Again, why do the kids care? And what's "the missile" that the summary later mentions without introduction? MOS:TVPLOT says to outline the important events of the episode. I fail to see how any of this stuff is not important to conveying an outline of the plot. Other things: how does anyone who isn't an old fan of the series know who Yamato is in the first episode summary when he doesn't even speak in the actual episode? How is Koshiro communicating with Taichi when he's apparently been transported to another world? (maybe that's not as important but Koshiro receiving a digivice is important) Also, the edits I made cut down on the flowery and subjective or weak language that is now once again present in the summaries, things like "thanks to two unknown feathers". When you look at the edit history, the person responsible for the current version justified it with "hope this is enough" which isn't enough of a reason to have cut down the previous, lengthier version of the summaries which also were within the character limit. --Aozf05 (talk) 08:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Aozf05: Feel free to revise the edit summaries, but keep in mind you don't need to give extra detail that may count as WP:FLOWERY. The purpose of episode summaries is to briefly explain what happened in every single episode in a neutral tone, and if people wanted everything explained to them, they'd just watch the episode themselves. lullabying (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • If you're gonna say that you should provide examples of where you thought there was WP:FLOWERY language because I did my due diligence and referred to the guidelines when I made my previous edit. None of the details I added were extra or puffed up. There were no scene-by-scene replays or evaluations. It was just the main plot events that happened told matter of factly. Keep in mind, these are plot summaries, not plot descriptions or loglines. MOS:TVPLOT says "all of an episode's important events should be outlined without censoring details considered spoilers". What that sounds like is all the main story beats should be there. --Aozf05 (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

episode table

I was just wondering. Does anyone know why exactly the episode table is broken where it is working right? Because I can't see a reason why it is not working properly and showing air date for episode 7. Pissedgreenlink (talk) 01:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Don't know why but I fixed it by copy/pasting the table entry for episode 6 and replaced the info. --Aozf05 (talk) 04:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Ah, it was "OriginalAirDate" was incorrectly written as "OriginalAirdate" which prevented the script from rendering the table as intended. --Aozf05 (talk) 04:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

List of Digimon

Why is there no list of digimon? Can you make one? UB Blacephalon (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:List of Digimon Adventure (2020 TV series) characters

Greetings, people. For those who know a lot about the Digimon franchise, I need help with this draft. I made it in order to avoid confusion with the original continuity. Fico Puricelli (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Do we really need an article if most of thr characters are rebooted versions of the existing characters from Digimon Adventures?--65.92.160.124 (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

yes, the characters have different evolutions.Muur (talk) 06:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Criticisms list is too heavily biased

The list of reactions and criticisms is too heavily biased in favor of a negative viewpoint. I tried to edit it as shortening the list was requested, but my edit was autoreverted. I believe more articles or commentary containing positive or neutral outlook should be added to this article as well. It is highly unfair to the series and this series' fans to only list reception from a negatively biased viewpoint, and it is clear most of the text seemed to have been added by a single person trying to skew the overall reception as negative. The note requesting revisions was added before I even noticed this had been done to the article; and it hadn't shown like that the last time I viewed the article. Non2410 (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

You could try to find and add more positive reviews by reliable sources about the series instead of just removing content because it seems "biased" from your point of view. - Xexerss (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I was in fact trying to do this by adding recent articles on reception for the latest episodes. There is a header right on the article stating it is too long. Non2410 (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The header of the article could be placed by everyone, and it does not represent consensus. For instance, you clearly wanted the opinion from Joshua Graves be removed[1]. A shortening of the section is in order, but it must be done according to WP:NPOV. You can freely add tons of reviews that supported it positively, but you can't "neutralize" the article by deleting negative POVs.SunDawn (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The article by Joshua Graves was very, very clearly negatively biased, and the whole of the Wikipedia article was clearly heavily edited by single individuals going by the formatting of the articles used and the quotations used; to skew negative. It is wholly unfair to only have negative reception on the article, while recent episodes have been gaining overall positive reception as the series moves in a further direction. Just because a negative article trashing the series to such a degree exists does not mean it has to be included. Wikipedia does have Quality standards after all, does it not? Also, considering a "Neutral point of view", the articles linked sure didn't read as "neutral" editing. And I did in fact leave articles that referenced it neutrally or leaning negatively. Even generally speaking, it is listed under "Early responses", while if kept it could be under "Criticism" and shortened, but those autoreverting edits will not even allow one to reformat the article.Non2410 (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The user who added the reviews probably just found those "negative" reviews and that's all. You can add more positive reviews from reliable sources, rewording the reception section to visualize how the reviews were improving with each episode. Just removing content because you disagree and you find them "extremely negative" is not a reason to removal, that would make yourself the one being biased. The section is too long, it's true, but what should be shortened are the reviews' paragraphs and that doesn't mean that there should be less "negative reviews". - Xexerss (talk) 04:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem is it is also impossible to shorten the article without removing some of the articles referred to. It is literally impossible as the article has become too long with all the text. I was attempting to add in the latest CBR articles which note the series has taken a positive turn while mentioning the issues it still had, but with less flowery text, but other users not even involved with this article keep insisting on autoreverting instead of looking at the contexts of this articles' formatting. Again, if you look at the "Early Responses" section it is far too long, far too negative leaning, and multiple early CBR / Comic Book Resources references used without including the most recent ones. The section on the Anime news Network Article is too long and heavily biased to keep as-is, and the CBR article on latest episodes are much more up to date while noting a positive turn as well as still including the setbacks. It is unfair that the fanbase cannot help improve this article as requested.Non2410 (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

But, why do you insist that they are biased? reviewers don't need to be positive to the series. If there are more negative reviews than positive reviews for early episodes that's how it is, but it's not a reasons to have them removed. If you find more positive reviews about the series at this stage, feel free to include them and visualize how reviewers improved their perception. And if you think that the current reviews are too detailed, you can shorten them to summarize and make them more concise. - Xexerss (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The Anime News Network articles offer nothing positive about the series and a slew of negative articles were added, with an "access date" in the editing indicating the same user added all of them, that's why. And what you mentioned is exactly what I'm attempting to do, as I keep repeating, (I am including the updated CBR articles to indicate their positive change of view) but other users with zero knowledge on this series keep finding reasons to jump in and editwar when I attempt. You are literally talking in circles with me. The article is too long and needs to be condensed, and that's what I was doing. A "neutral point of view" is standard for Wikipedia's rules, but the sources linked were wholly negatively biased, it is unfair and not up to Wikipedia's Quality standards. Non2410 (talk) 05:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC) "A shortening of the section is in order, but it must be done according to WP:NPOV". You said it yourself, the "Neutral point of view" is required, but the current view being debated previously on the article is not neutral, it was biased in a very obvious direction. Non2410 (talk) 05:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

What part of "critics don't need to be positive" is what you don't understand? Neutral point of view doesn't mean that the series' reception must have equal parts positive and negative reviews, obviously criticism is subjective and can be biased depending on each reviewer, but the opinions in the reception section are made by experts and that's why they are taken into consideration. What is not neutral is to remove those critics' reviews because you disagree with them; it's not up to us to evaluate if their opinions are right or wrong but just show what they wrote. If there are more negative reviews than positive reviews what we must do is visualize that reception of the series and not just make arrangements to change it and start removing those opinions that we don't agree with to make it less negative. Again, if you find positive reviews by reliable sources just add them, but don't remove those reviews that you think are "extremely negative" to make the reception "less harsh" or whatever. - Xexerss (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I did rewrite the criticisms to condense the reviews without removing them completely, added new, recent reviews which showed the remaining reviewers' stance had changed and was leaning generally positive, and you still are trying to blatantly ignore the fact that the article is incredibly biased, and you and others, keep reverting changes no matter how it's edited at this point. It's bias. Plain and simple. Even the "Development" section is overly long and adds to that bias. There are not "more negative reviews", positive reviews for this series do in fact exist (including from Comic Book Resources as of recent, multiple weeks), the problem is an insane amount of negative reviews were added by a biased "fan" to begin with. I could add 10-20 more "positive" articles with sources, because it's a children's anime series and these do in fact exist, but it'd still be way too long and not read "neutral" at all. It'd just be 10-20 more "positive" reviews to combat the biased-negative reviews. This isn't even my opinion any more at this point, it's just fact. Non2410 (talk) 06:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC) And, since you insist on not seeing what the problem here is, let me point it out to you directly. 1. The "Early Responses" section is 1,200 words long on its own, with clear bias intended to any average reader who reads it. That's insane for a childrens' anime series article. In comparison, for example, on the Shoujo end of popular series, "Cardcaptor Sakura"'s article has 320 words for Manga reception and 700 for anime reception (with some of that referring to its dub). It can be considered as "classic" as the initial Digimon Adventure series, as both aired around the same timeframe and gained notable status in the "classic" category. "Sailor Moon" is one of the most popular manga series of all time (even according to its Reception section) and the Reception section there is around 569 words long. Neither have nearly as many biased articles linked as this Shounen anime article does. Hell, even "Naruto"'s Reception status isn't this biased, and Naruto is arguably much more popular than Digimon, with much more actual coverage. Both Manga & Anime sections for Naruto's Reception section are around 730 words total. 2. It's clear who initially added the Reception and Development sections to begin with when you look at "View History". Non2410 (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC) And even the original "Digimon Adventure"'s Reception section is 240 words long, only. "Digimon Adventure 02" has a single sentence written despite being much more recognized overall than the latest reboot. As said, it's not even my opinion that this article is biased, it's fact. Otherwise, you would allow newer, more updated reviews to be added, or alongside the more positive commentary that were also in the previously added articles, without autoreverting. Non2410 (talk) 07:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC) The fact someone also recently had to add in, "a marketing campaign based on the buzzword "Epic""????? Talk about original research. "Buzzword"?!! This article in general needs a major overhaul regardless of my opinion. The fact people are deliberately trying to skew the reception as negative to mislead fans is laughable. Also considering it recently re-ranked again, but surely you will revert that information too. This is extremely disappointing for an anime article for a childrens' Shounen, this article needs better control from someone who knows how to actually properly manage articles. Non2410 (talk) 07:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey. Your ""positive"" add(s? I only see one reviewer: Comicbook H.Collins, not 10-20.) from March 13, which sums up the critical trend over 40 ep. as you say, was not deleted or reverted. Of course, the last TV rating (from only a few hours ago!) was not ignored nor deleted. The reviewers who writes weekly articles about the show, also writes overviews after 20, 30, 40 eps now and they basically share the same perception/critics. In your edits, deleting CR's, Graves', ANN's, etc. "harsh" statements doesn't seem any less biased or highlighting more positive opinions. You can see that they are not bad people as they also share their hopes over the months, but paragraphs of hopes and wishes are not equal to positive reviews unfortunately. It's up to you, the fans or the kids in 10 years to think that these people are jrks by reading these, but it's the critical consensus for now, the "responses". As you say, there are at least a dozen sourced reviews from big outlets now... I don't see how it's biased. HarpazDG (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

yeh jesus christ whoever is writing this shit must hate the series lmao. and its not even really that well written in all honesty. also that section about ratings seems off to me, there's more anime airing these days compared to 20 years ago and most people probably watch digitally these days. (the episodes air on japanese netflix as well, so this doesnt even take into account any views from that and other streaming platforms). comparing the ratings to 20 years ago and saying "this reboot is a massive flop" seems super uncalled for.Muur (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The "critical response" section really needs to be heavily trimmed or removed altogether, as it's just taking lines from different review outlets that sort of reiterate the same things to the point where the section becomes almost incoherent to read. In fact, the TV ratings section isn't really require here either. "Early response" and "Public response" should be combined into a single section and that would be fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.144.109 (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the reception section needs to be trimmed down. Some of the reviews listed are not from reliable sources per WP:ANIME/RS as they are non-notable sites/writers or just websites with no formal editorial staff (which I have already tagged). Myjitsu, for example, is definitely not a reliable source. One thing I've noticed is that whoever is writing this section is making out the criticisms to be a lot worse than they actually are by cherry-picking some lines or adding unnecessary comments (i.e. Do we really need to know that Christopher Farris from ANN decided to drop weekly reviews for this show?). lullabying (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

at this point its getting even worse. now its a the point where it says everyone hated it, and that its the worst anime of all time. whoever the editor doing this is clearly is going out of his way with how much he hates this show. hes even including Portuguese and french reviews which shows hes going out of his way to find hate.Muur (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

"monsters continuing to fight at the Champion-level, while the series had introduced several higher evolution-levels from its very beginning,". the entire fucking series from anime, to manga, to video games does this. this is not exclusive to 2020. and its not like Goku and Naruto go into their most powerful form every single episode.Muur (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Muur: A lot of critics unfortunately are giving this series unfavorable reviews and that's just a fact. If you find any positive reviews you can add them on the page but this place isn't to discuss your disagreements with what the reviewers say. lullabying (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

its more in relation to the fact that the original guy shoved every negative review he could find regardless of the relevance of the person reviewing.Muur (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I see that the reception section has been toned down so if you have any positive reviews or would like to reword some sentences, feel free to. lullabying (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

here's a positive oneMuur (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if I would consider Crunchyroll a reliable source in this context. Since they streamed the series, they may have a WP:COI. Link20XX (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)