Talk: Animals

New Layout

What's with the reversion to the messy, chaotic layout, GMRE? I spent quite a bit of time on it, so I'd appreciate more of a reason than just "umm... no".

My layout was far more efficent. It sectioned the article off into each game, as opposed to the previous layout which just threw everything together in one disorganised list.

Or are you upset that I removed the completely irrelevant references to animals that were only mentioned figuratively in speeches? 

What's the issue?

KToTheA (talk) 14:51, January 1, 2016 (UTC)

It's not more efficient when looking for a specific animal at all. How is this more efficient exactly? It was sorted by animal and now it's sorted by game and then by animal, causing you to repeat things. Also, now the article has lots of otherwise useless headings and the actual animal names/species are only presented as small text.

And that too. Each and every animal even figuratively mentionedd must be listed here, since none of the others are actually named either. GMRE (talk) 15:39, January 1, 2016 (UTC)

My layout seperates the article into the different games and lists their respective animals by class.

Your layout just lists all animals, of all classes, of all games, all together.

Which layout do you think is more efficient at giving the reader the information they need more quickly? The one that conviniently puts the information into sections, or the one that just merges everything together in one long list?

Let's say somebody wants to read about the animals specifically featured in Just Cause 3. All they'd have to do is scroll down to the clearly defined Just Cause 3 section and they'd have all the information they needed. With your layout, they'd have to sift through a long list and read a load of information they weren't even looking for. That's how my layout is more efficient.

The headings aren't useless at all. They were put there to help people find specific animals more easily. If someone is looking for information on mammals, they don't have to sift through a load of information on birds or fish. Having them grouped by class is far more efficient than having them lumped together in one eyesore of a list.

The animals in my list physically exist in the game, or are spoken of like they do exist. Listing an animal just because it was mentioned as a figure of speech is just stupid. It's just a metaphor in a speech; it doesn't mean the animal is in the game.

In saying that, I am willing to compromise. If having "metaphorical animals" listed means the new layout stays, then so be it.

Edit: I really don't understand the addition of the Vampire monster truck. What kind of animal is a vampire?

KToTheA (talk) 18:49, January 1, 2016 (UTC)

"Which layout do you think is more efficient at giving the reader the information they need more quickly?" Mine obviously. The target audience is not looking for real world scientific classifications for commonly known species, they're looking for a list of specific things.

"Let's say somebody wants to read about the animals specifically featured in Just Cause 3." That's why each heading was clearly marked with (JC), (JC2) and (JC3). The list of shortcuts to headings should be easy enough to skim through.

"The headings aren't useless at all. They were put there to help people find specific animals more easily." See my first point.

"Listing an animal just because it was mentioned as a figure of speech is just stupid." Those are parts of what make up the game world. Who are you to decide which parts of the game world are worthy of documentation here and which are not?

"I really don't understand the addition of the Vampire monster truck. What kind of animal is a vampire?" I don't know either, but it's not up to me to classify them. I'm just here to document the game and those are clearly non-human living things. Therefore mentioned as "fictional, or otherwise". GMRE (talk) 19:23, January 1, 2016 (UTC)

"The target audience is not looking for real world scientific classifications for commonly known species"

And my layout doesn't list "scientific classifications for commonly known species". It just uses a few generic classifications (which even toddlers would be able to understand) as basic headers to help group information and make it more easily accessible.

Having the animals grouped by class is far more convenient than having them thrown into one long list.

"they're looking for a list of specific things."

Does my layout not offer that? My layout is actually more specific than yours in that it groups the information by game and by class.

"That's why each heading was clearly marked with (JC), (JC2) and (JC3)."

And that's precisely the flaw of your layout. It mixes everything up. A reader looking for JC3-specific information has to sift through JC1 and JC2 information. That's not the case with my layout.

It is far easier to find specific information with my layout than it is with yours.

"Those are parts of what make up the game world."

How exactly do metaphors and figures of speech make up the game world?

There's dozens of metaphorical references to animals in the Just Cause series. Do you honestly expect them all to be listed here?

"Who are you to decide which parts of the game world are worthy of documentation here and which are not?"

And who are you, since you seem just as adamant on pushing your own ideas?

I'm here to help create a reliable source of information on the Just Cause series. I have the same right as anyone to point out and remove misplaced information if I find it -- and a vampire being listed on a page about animals is misplaced information.

A vampire is not a member of the animal kingdom, nor is it a "living thing" as you claim... Unless, of course, you can point me to some scientific evidence to prove otherwise.

If you want to list vampires as an animal, then go ahead and add dragons, fairies, smoke monsters, ghosts and demons, as they have all been referenced in the series. Plus, the literal dozens of vehicles, weapons and places which all have names inspired by animals.KToTheA (talk) 15:44, January 2, 2016 (UTC)

"There's dozens of metaphorical references to animals in the Just Cause series. Do you honestly expect them all to be listed here?" - Yes all of them, but there are not dozens. Only the exact ones that are all already listed. ...Actually, now that I think about it, I'mm gonna have to see if bulls are mentioned yet.

Have your opinion and I'll have mine. I'm not gonna waste time repeating myself here. GMRE (talk) 16:01, January 2, 2016 (UTC)

Just Cause 1 Xbox 360

In the xbox360 version there are much more birds and they can even be killed. Michael De Santa 15:30, January 4, 2016 (UTC)

Really? Do they look different, or are there just more of the same kind of birds?GMRE (talk) 16:32, January 4, 2016 (UTC)

Just more birds, or more types of birds? KToTheA (talk) 17:20, January 4, 2016 (UTC)

Smoke Monsters

Where do these two slot in? Are they animals? Ghosts? FloatingZygarde(talk) 22:55, March 7, 2017 (UTC)

Uh...

They are not animals

They are considered easter eggs for JC3 and JC2 Anonymous230385 ^{Any questions? Wanna talk?} 00:07, March 8, 2017 (UTC)

That's actually a very good point. I haven't seen the JC3 smoke monster myself, but the JC2 one is a friendly panauan soldier who just happens to emit smoke from his body. So basically, if someone manages to reasonably argue that the JC3 one is some kind of a living thing (even an evil spirit/ghost/demon) then as long as it's not a human, or a former human, it belongs in this article. Several of the animals are already also easter eggs. GMRE (talk) 16:28, March 8, 2017 (UTC)

The JC3 one seems to hunt for prey. --FloatingZygarde(talk) 17:01, March 8, 2017 (UTC)

Non-physical animals

I feel the focus of this page has been cast somewhat wide. It covers animals, yeah, but there's entries for vampires and robots. ROBOTS.

I also think that the reader may be better served by removing the literary references, for while I can think of very few occaisions where one might need a list of animals in the Just Cause series of games, I can think of still less where a compilation of all animal-based metaphors and idioms is what someone is looking for. At least put them in a section at the end so people don't have to skip over them.

Wikis are meant to be sources of useful information, not places where trivia is tossed onto a pile. 24.13.14.58 23:15, July 11, 2018 (UTC)

Yes ROBOTS are mentioned because the person who added it deemed it NECESSARY to add.

Do you even know why trivia are on articles? Because they DO NOT or BARELY contribute to the main article points, but is worth noting. Anonymous230385 ^{Any questions? Wanna talk?} 23:21, July 11, 2018 (UTC)

And was the person who added it right? Could someone add an entry about how a particular tree texture looked like it had an owl in it?

I'm also not 100% sure what you're rebutting with the mention of trivia, but I assume it's the inclusion of metaphors? In that case I'll note that trivia is generally placed at the bottom of a given page precisely because it barely contributes. 24.13.14.58 23:43, July 11, 2018 (UTC)

The person who added it was an admin.

And yes in theory an entry could be added about an owl IF one was ever seen.

No not the inclusion of metaphors,

Trivia is NON-ESSENTIAL CONTENT to the article AT HAND.

Where do you not understand? Anonymous230385 ^{Any questions? Wanna talk?} 00:03, July 12, 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it makes little sense to mention robots here, unless in trivia, but the metaphorical references to vultures and dogs make sense to me. Each mention of anything is fully explained where mentioned, so it's impossible for any reader to get confused by them. GMRE (talk) 15:41, July 12, 2018 (UTC)

Oh and as for the "Wikis are meant to be sources of useful information, not places where trivia is tossed onto a pile." - Actually this entire article is completely useless trivia. Really the only "useful" articles we have are mission articles and vehicle/weapon/destructable lists. There is no way that the list of animals could have any "use", other than simply as a bit of interesting trivia about the Just Cause Universe. Similarly we have articles for Tube, Elevators, San Esperitian cuisine and several others that have no "use" whatsoever. This article is entirely "trivia", so to that end, yes: every mention of every living being is "useful", simply in the name of having a complete list. GMRE (talk) 17:25, July 12, 2018 (UTC)

And I thought everything you wrote was "right" except for a spelling/grammar mistake

And yes there is that Anonymous230385 ^{Any questions? Wanna talk?} 18:08, July 12, 2018 (UTC)

I was the one who pointed out on the Suppression drone article that it sounds like an animal, but I don't think I was the one who added that here. GMRE (talk) 20:42, July 12, 2018 (UTC)