Talk:Gabumon

from VfD:

Cryptic unidentified trivia, perhaps from the Pokemon universe. --LeeHunter 15:34, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

*Keep. See List of Digimon and Digimon. Article needs cleanup, but there are many articles on Digimon that have been retained. →Iñgólemo← (talk) 15:39, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

• Merge. Some time ago, I created an article on every planet in the Foundation Universe of Isaac Asimov; some articles were only a few sentences long, and were merged into the List of minor Foundation planets. A similar fate should probably apply to Gabumon and similar articles. →Iñgólemo← (talk) 06:48, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
• Weakest of all keeps. Obscure, and these should probably be merged into one page, but then again the Pokemon articles have set a precedent. If Pokemon are deemed keepworthy then I imagine these should as well. [[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth]] 15:43, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• That past maintainers have proven inadequate to the task is no excuse for our condoning this avalanche of trivia. If these chaps who run various properties such as Pokemon, Digimon and the like want to stump up some money, we can give them their own namespace. Until then, delete.
• Horribly written, but I think the topic is encyclopedic. Keep & cleanup. Everyking 17:14, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 17:52, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I've attempted to clean it up, but, the dub being aimed more at kids, it's been awhile seen I've seen it. That said, this is a character in most of the episodes of the first series, so the information should be retained one way or another, either as a merge somewhere or a straight out keep. I'd like to note that for a non-major-character Digimon, I would probably say delete. - RedWordSmith 18:11, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Trivia, non-encyclopedic, and of no relevance or interest whatsoever separate from Digimon. Characters that do not have a 'break out' level of fame do not need separate articles. Average Earthman 18:17, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• First of all, Pokemon should not be seen as a precedent for anything. The embarrassing Pokemon situation at wikipedia is what happens when a bunch of 10 year olds are set free without any sort of policy put in place, or even discussed. It's nice that they want to contribute to an encyclopedia, but they should have some understanding of what an encyclopedia is first. Delete or at the very least merge and redirect to some digimon article. -R. fiend 18:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - minor trivia. - Cdc 18:40, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 19:17, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Mozzerati 19:12, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)
• Delete: Bad enough that Pokemen are in, but this is even worse: it's a Digimon -- RC Cola to Pokemon's Coke. Subatomic trivia. Geogre 19:43, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

...Just being a children's show with monsters does not make something a Pokemon knockoff - not only did Digimon (as a product) come first, but it is vastly different in execution - it is a character-driven fantasy story with no "collection" aspect, whereas Pokemon aims to be a "biography" type of show with a profound abcense of innovation or character growth.KrytenKoro 07:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: subtrivial. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:41, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep a precedent has been set, the existence of other pokemon articles implies that they are acceptable, wikipedia should keep its implied promises. Kappa 02:34, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • 1. This is a digimon, not a Pokemon, not all trivial "-mons" are equal. 2. There is no "promise" implied or otherwise, just an extreme oversight. -R. fiend 05:19, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The seperate articles on every Pokemon should be deleted too. Delete this. --Improv 03:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to another article or keep. -Sean Curtin 02:48, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Trivial fancruft. Indrian 05:21, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 06:45, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Gabumon's fur

Just thought I'd say, that the thing about Gabumon wearing a Garurumon's fur sounds familiar but I can't remember where I read it before. I have a vague memory of disbelieving it at first then finding it was actually correct, but it is a very vague memory. I'll check what books I have when I get home. Shiroi Hane 10:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the following text is from the V-Jump Koushiki Daizukan:

毛皮
じつはガブモンの毛皮はガルルモンのもの！　ガルルモンに憧れるあまり、データの残骸から毛皮おもらい、かぶっているのだ。

which roughly translates (using Excite combined with a dash of common sense) as: "The fur of Gabumon is that of a Garurumon. It obtains the fur from remnants of data because it yearns to ba a Garurumon." I've uploaded a rough scan of the page here. Shiroi Hane 20:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Pic

Anyone happen to have a pic of a single Gabumon that doesn't suck? (I added the one that's there now :P) Indiawilliams 19:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Reptile

Gabumon is described as a reptile, isn't he more of a dog? Bubble bunny

Its officialy classified as a "Reptile Digimon", same goes for Agumon. Nightmare SE 16:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)