Talk:Digimon Tamers

Split

You can probably see that information from many different Digimon articles was pulled for this new article. So far this seems far more organized than having the bits of information in separate articles. What I've done so far is more or less a demonstration on the improvement we'll see if we apply this to all the Digimon series/ seasons. It's got a long way to go, but I think that the Digimon articles can become "feature article" worthy in a matter of months. Like I said, what you see so far is just a first step; eventually all the Digimon articles should conform to the standards found in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Digimon_Systems_Update and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga. Till then, lets see what works and what direction we want to go in. --Ned Scott 05:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Story Summary

There's a complete summary of the Tamers storyline over on Yamaki's page. I can't help feel that, while it is largely from the viewpoint of Yamaki, this page would be a better home for most of it now that it exists. Shiroi Hane 01:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

wow, that's definitely one of the better digimon wikipedia articles... I agree, this would make for a better plot summary. -- Ned Scott 22:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Monster Makers

I only remember them being reunited to fight the d-reaper, I don't recall them being reunited to combat the digimon themselves... anyone want to shed some light on this for me? -- Ned Scott 07:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Might be a backstory reference. Not familiar enough with season to tell. Have you tried leaving the contributor a Talk Page note? Circeus 14:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

no they were never united before the d- reaper. Jedi fox 19:49, 9 September 2006 (ETC)

Yes they were... kind of. Yamaki tried to call them together in order to combat the Devas, but he couldn't locate or get a hold of all of them. 76.226.249.8 (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Year Tamers is set in

Although it is officially referred to as "200X", there are some clues in the show as to the real year it was set. For example, in "Battle of the Adventurers" a calendar behind Ruki/Rika shows that it is August and the dates shown match up with those in August 2001 and August 2007. I assume because it is a scene shown in continuity, that this information would be factual to that continuity. If further clues identify the real year in which it definitely takes place, should it be inserted into the article as fact? 86.128.34.175 21:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the shows creators and animators really cared enough to make the calendar an exact reference, and it doesn't change the story, so it's not really significant. But since 2001 is closer to when the show aired I'd think it would be then. Like I said, it's not very significant, and 200X is close enough to sum up what pop-culture, technology, and other considerations were at the time. -- Ned Scott 23:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Emphases on secondary characters with Digimon

Not sure if we should have the secondary characters have a list box like the main characters do. With the exception of Ryo, the other characters are largely developed without Digimon partners, so the fact that they later get a partner isn't exactly a true reflection on their over-all character. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 04:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's true that they're (Jeri, Kazu, Kenta, Ai & Mako) not main characters, but the actions they take do have important consequences for the main characters (Leomon's death, Mako giving Impmon his Beelzemon Blast Mode gun and such). Perhaps we could list them and their partners in the 'Other Characters' section? - Indiawilliams 06:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that they have partners should be noted, I just don't think it's on the same level as the three main characters (plus Ryo, since his relation with Cyberdramon goes farther than the Tamers series), wether Kazu, Kenta, etc are main characters or not. Listing the partner Digimon separately might be a good idea. I mean, when you think about it, we treat Ai & Mako almost as one character, and could probably even treat Kazu & Kenta as a single character too. Impmon / Beelzemon is very much a standalone character and far out-shadows his Tamers. It gets a bit complicated on how to reference all these characters at-a-glance like this. -- Ned Scott 13:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Given Ryo's tendancy to just "be there" in terms of Tamers, and his overall lack of focus as a character (he's there fighting in big battles, but he rarely develops or does anything beyond have good natured fighting with Rika), one could say Kazu is as much or more a main character than Ryo. --Razorsaw 11:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not my main point. It's not about who is a more major character, it's about that character's relation to their Digimon partner. -- Ned Scott 11:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

egao

there's a song called egao that goes to one of the tamer movies. why isn't it listed here. I think it was for Runaway Locomon.199.80.117.25 14:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

DVD release?

Has there been a DVD release of this program in any region? If so, it should be mentioned in the article.--76.166.208.172 (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"Adult oriented?"

"While the first two anime are originally aimed in Japan at children aged between 6 and 11 as Japanese child-oriented anime, the Digimon Tamers anime was aimed at young adults and is an adult oriented anime, with the English dub aimed at 6-11 years old and more child oriented."

I deleted that part for obvious reasons. This part of the article in particular keeps getting filled with stuff like this, which is simply wrong. While Tamers does have a darker tone than Adventure, it's still aimed at children and young teens, mainly (my opinion is that it can be enjoyed by anyone including adults as well, but that's beside the point). It's definitely nowhere near an "adult oriented anime" in any case.

I also deleted the "And in the English dub, the tone was edited to be much a lot very lighter just like past dubs." line. It directly contradicts the previous line, which is actually true (Adventure did have more heavy editing and script changes, even if that's not saying much).

The "One thing that made the tone darker..." part hardly sounds encyclopedic, too, but I'll leave that.--PositronCannon (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Shadow have posted 9.5.2009:

Well, I do believe that it is not entirely aimed for children.

In the begining there is a plot about the secret organization Hypnos. I do not think that children could understand its whereabouts, its origin or even its purpose. They would just depicted Yamaki and others as the bad guys and thez would not see the smooth way how they slowly turn into protagonists.

In the middle of the season you are taught to understand Digimons like live beings just like us. And that is when Belzeemon murders Leomon. I dare to use word murder, bucause despite they are Digimons, they are now to be taken like fully developed characters.

The end of the season is most noticable example. If I had a children, I would not allow them to watch this. A girl, who is constantly in depression is sunking even lower when her friends are trying to rescue her. This is a good example how would real person with her personality react, but in my humble opinion it is not appropriate for children at all. Along with all these horrifying images of D-Reaper, which grows stronger because of her despair. This part is toned like psychedelic horror. I think that children would not understand the reasoning behind it.

I do not say that it is not for children at all. But most likely they will not understand 60% of what is happening there.

I am not going to change anything there cause of my bad english and unability tu put it in the encyclopedic form. But I felt like I just have to point out these things at least in the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowTheHedgehogCZ (talk • contribs) 00:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Really, how is a secret organization not understandable? Or even the bad guy murdering a good guy? Hell, Spongebob has had episodes about that. Frequently.

Honestly, my younger siblings, each about 10 years younger than me, understood this material easily. I ron't think that a few "darker" themes make something unintelligible to children. I mean, come on, children on the whole are more vicious than most adults.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I have two words for all of this: original research. You are applying your own interpretations to determine the target audience of the series. This is completely unacceptable under Wikipedia's policies, which requires any disputable claim to be verified against a reliable source. --Farix (Talk) 12:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed content

I've removed the sentence "A character evii is in digimon tamers. however her whereabouts are unknown." because, though I haven't seen Digimon Tamers, I can't find a single other website that mentions this character, and from the way it's written it looks like someone just wanted to add their Mary Sue to Wikipedia. Ketsuban (is 1337) 20:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Leomon

It lists Leomon's voice actor as Paul Rugg. But, if you visit Leomon's own wiki page, it lists Paul St. Peter as his only voice actor. Which is correct here? ~Reika 06:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you are referring to Jeri Katou's voice actor. kazu (talk) 07:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, except not. Jeri Katou's voice actor is clearly posted as being Bridget Hoffman. But if you look at Leomon, right next to Jeri's voice actor, you see Paul Rugg listed as Leomon's voice actor. And yet, Paul St. Peter is listed as Leomon's voice actor both here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digimon_Tamers#English_Cast , here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leomon , and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_St._Peter . Either Paul St. Peter's name was a misprint on all three pages, or Paul Rugg was a misprint. Either way, one of the two needs to be changed. ~Reika 22:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Paul St. Peter is listed as Leomon's voice actor on every page but this one. Even then, his voice actor is listed twice and only one of them is listed as Paul Rugg. Unless anyone has evidence that every other page is wrong and Paul St. Peter is NOT his voice actor, I've changed Paul Rugg to Paul St. Peter. ~Reika 01:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Character profiles

http://www.konaka.com/alice6/tamers/characters/ lists all of them - in Japanese and English

http://www.konaka.com/alice6/tamers/index.html says that Amy Sasaki translated the tamers pages WhisperToMe (talk) 06:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Question

Why the names and age were changed in the english and german version? Im not sure about the ages, the figures look like 14-year olds, in my opinion. --77.3.109.42 (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

can someone answer please! --77.3.127.215 (talk) 09:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Henry Wong

Is there any particular reason why the Romanisation for Henry's Chinese name is given as Li Jianling and not Lee Kin Leung? Sure, pinyin would translate the characters as Li Jianling, but Henry's use of the phrase Mo Mantai suggests one of his parents is from Hong Kong and thus his name would not be pronounced as Li Jianling by any of his family members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.100.198 (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

This comment is old but I'm going to reply to it to avoid future questions like this and in case edit-warring may happen. This is because the Japanese version romanized his name this way, as seen on this book scan: http://syldra.net/kenkeru/characters/other/jenrya.htm lullabying (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Reception section's critique from Margaret Schwartz

The summary of the critique by Margaret Schwartz in the reception section seems to be irrelevant to the Digimon Tamers series. Throughout the Schwartz's review, there is no mentioning of Digimon Tamers, but there is mentioning of the Digimon franchise and the first two series. She even mentions the Digimon emperor Ken from the 02 series. I suggest the critique to be moved from this Wikipedia article to the article(s) belonging to Digimon Adventure and/or the 02 series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.206.33.41 (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Phrasing of Controversy section

The controversy section describes Konaka as having "blogged his beliefs in several debunked conspiracy theories, such as 9/11 and COVID-19", but while that's correct, i think it is loosely phrased to imply he believed in them, a fact he specifically refuted and is stated in the citation. Rephrasing it to something like "blogged his opinions about conspiracy theories around 9/11 and COVID-19" may help make this clearer and prevent confusion. Shinymetalcrow (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)