Talk:Animal

I admit that this page looks sloppy and that it will have repeated animals. We might have to re-organize it completely into individual animals instead of by game. It is a work-in-progress after all. We'll just have to see what works best.User:Matt/sig 19:10, August 15, 2008 (UTC)

I'll help you out with this page matt! Photo time! :P --Onyx 20:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree it makes more sense to divide it by individual animals instead of per game. On the other hand do we actually need this page to be so expanded? As the animals all have there own main page, wouldn't a simple list be enough? Nictel 12:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It still be good to have a summary of each animal. Not all of them have there own page. The drangonflys in the fishing hole in Twilight Princess doesn't have its own page. And it should not. It is just in the game to add realism but nothing beyond that. We're going to need a few more opinions before we reorganize this page.User:Matt/sig 16:06, November 12, 2008 (UTC)

There are also some other animals, squirrels and such, that don't have and don't need their own pages. That is a function that this page will serve.User:Matt/sig 16:33, November 12, 2008 (UTC)

Oh lord, I'm seeing this eyesore for the first time ever. We must reorganize by animals and list which games they appear in. But I agree, no reason to create pages for each one that doesn't have it's own page already. I'll see what I can do here before reorganizing. I'd like a few current suggestions on that first. User:Axiomist/sig 03:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It's much better now. But are we just going to have it as is? Or are we planning to sort it alphabetically?User:Matt/sig 16:33, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

I didn't try to sort it, but I'd rather sort it cascading by size. Largest (expected) sections on top and work down to small sections such as the Seahorse with only one appearance. I can see the benefits of alphabetizing it for searching purposes, but since all of the articles are alphabetized in the Category page itself, that's moot. I prefer the Inverted Pyramid Format. User:Axiomist/sig 16:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I updated some of the sections, included some lists of appearances by game, and organized it as such: sections which appear "complete" or at least acceptable are at the top, ranked in terms of perceived relevance. After that, sections that are smaller but have some information (whether or not they have a main article) are before blank sections with main articles, and last comes blank sections with no main article. I'll see if I can do more work on it later, but if not, I at least go the ball rolling.

Btw, that edit is a testament to the power of "preview" before you click "Save" ;) --Xizor 21:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)