Talk:Animal

Organization
I have some serious concerns regarding how the page is structured at the moment. As it currently is, there are four large sections (i.e., "Common Animals", "Species of Animals", "Common Animals" again, and "Animal Enemies") that each independently re-list the franchise's animal diversity, which is very redundant. Of these, the last three are simply lists of names with either minimal context or no context of any sort, and, I mean. Yes, I suppose I could read a list of 200-odd names with no discussion whatsoever, but what's gained by doing that?

Moreover, I have serious questions about the definition of "animal" being used here. The "Species of Animals" section uses a lot of classifications that as far as I can tell are just sciency-sounding nonsense words ("Pedal-Squamate", "Serpintene"), but a lot more seem to just be wholly made up in order to shoehorn as many monsters and enemies as possible into this list (i.e., things like "Lapus", "Moculus", "Armollusk", "Manibus", etc.) Is something like a Pebblit, a Wallmaster or the like really describable as an animal? Then there's the "No Category" section at the end, for listing assorted other enemies like Bomb-ombs, Freezards and Boes that couldn't apparently be forced into some kind of animal-sounding clade name.

Then the second "Common Animals" section is apparently just a context-less retreading of the first "Common Animals" sections. "Animal Enemies" is a little more interesting, but again it's low on context and low on sources.

Most of this boils down to two basic issues. One, redundancy -- we don't need four large sections to all say the same thing in four slightly different ways. Two, sourcing and lack thereof -- a lot of the listing, classification and discussion here seems to have been created without any direct input from canonical sources, which explains a lot of the mess. I would note here that the series, or at least recent games, draws a specific distinction between "Animal" and "Monster" (BotW and TotK both make a clear split between something like a Kesse or a Octorok and something like a boar or a heron). Theriocephalus 19:51, 18 Jun 2023 (UTC)

Organization 2008
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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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)

Remlits
Kay I kinda doubt that anyone is going to respond to this, but I was thinking, shouldn't Remlits be added to this as they're an animal species in Zelda too? The Goron Moron 19:07, 21 November 2011 (EST)