Talk:Lists of fictional animals

Extinct animals?

I thought about linking to extinct_animals but there's nothing there right now.

Not sure which is better, I think a list would be nice talk:list_of_extinct_animals and extinct_animals to talk about the process of extinction, etc.

~ender, 2003-03-31 1:03 MST

What about the List of fictional extinct animals, or should that be List of extinct fictional animals? Gotta find a home for Barney, you know. <g> -- John Owens

There are many-many extinct fictional animals (as many as you want) - Dr. Seuss story of trees for a non-animal example, and I don't think we should make a list of fictionally extinct animals (those merely get removed from the list_of_extinct_animals), and yes there are a few that make that list. Coelocanth for example.

But point was that those were related links, so wanted to reference some non-fictional animal links.

Jihad to Kill Barney is definitely ripe for inclusion in *something* - but that might not fit in so well with an encyclopedia. (Maybe pop culture reactions)

I'm also not sure where to put in fictional breeds. Like Unicorns? Or how to reference Cryptozoology. And what about the Jabberwocky, it's a unique fictional animal. Does it belong in this list? Or some other?

~ender 2003-03-31 01:22 MST

<pedant>It's Jabberwock. Jabberwocky is the poem and movie.</pedant> <g>

More seriously, would it be likely to get out of control if we kept the links to other lists of fictional animals at the top of the page, and then under that listed fictional breeds and individuals that don't fit the other lists? I wouldn't think so, but then, I was rather caught off guard by the way the List of fictional mice blew up. -- John Owens 08:30 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

I think it should be existant breeds of animals at the top, followed by fictional examples of extinct breeds (eg: dinosaurs), and weird fictional breeds/inidividuals/what-have-you below that.

~ender 2003-05-11 02:06 MST

Patrick, there was a reason why historical was seperate from extinct animals. I wanted someone to be able to navigate from looking up Cerberus (fictional dog-like being) to recalling that there was an actual race horse named Cerberus (historical horse)-- which is a complete fabrication, but hits the point I'm trying to make. Historical animals sometimes provide sources for fictional animals to be based on. Historical animals are not only extinct animals, nor do I think that a cat who died a hundred years ago should be referenced from extinct animals. (Extinct animals has huge problems anyways).
And the list of historical animals is a way for people to navigate from cat to dog to mouse to ape, without having to update every single list of animals when you add a new category (which wasn't being done; only Mice listed cats, pigs and dogs, whereas list of cats listed dogs and mice, and list of dogs only listed cats) Some of those animal categories were broke into historical and fictional (a good distinction I think).
Which is another problem we face: 'famous' versus 'fictional|historical'. That needs to get resolved one way or another. I fixed monkeys/chimps/apes (only apes and chimps made it to this master list - and apes had all the chimps listed there).
But did not do elephants, etc...
~ender 2003-05-11 02:14 MST

Humans

Humans: Do we really need the link to fictional character in this list, disguised as a list of humans? If you insist on putting "human" in the list, I would vote for creating a new page (would be a bold project), list of human fictional characters. The page fictional character simply is not, and does not attempt to be, an extensive list of fictional characters, but merely contains a list of very famous ones as a sub-heading. -- Timwi 00:14 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Considering most fiction is based on people, I agree the above looks a little contrived, so have reworded the article accordingly (so as to include the link, but not in the contrived 'human' way).Mat-C 02:39, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)