Talk:Animal Companion (630)

Division of information

I tried to keep this page on point with the spell and its use in particular, but the information that was here before had an example of a canine attack maneuver and I didn't want to remove that entirely since it risks getting lost.

I suggest moving the mechanics and example sections to the Animal companion page eventually and possibly reorganizing that one a bit and make it more substantial since it seems to be a lot of lists at present. I'll work on it when I write out some more substantial stuff and polish it up a bit, unless someone else beats me to it. ;)

Please use ~~~~ to sign your discussion points. Besides the clutter issue, I'm not sure why there are different pages to begin with, I think I can make a sortable table out of the listed information and either keep the separate page for it or move it onto the spell page, we'll see how big it is. VANKRASN39 (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2015 (CST)

Yeah, merging the two pages is definitely another option, though I agree it would be pretty cluttered. I suspect that they're currently separate because there's the spell (which is pretty simple) and then there are all of the many mechanical things animal companions do (which aren't actually included in the other page).

If the end goal is to consolidate a lot of the information about animal companions from other pages and provide many details on the mechanics of animal companions, then I think it makes sense to have a separate page for those. If we just want to have a bit of a summary on the wiki and leave the rest to external pages then one page would probably sufffice. I'm not sure which is the best way to proceed though. SARAH3 (talk) 07:20, 26 January 2015 (CST)

I'd like to see a lot of pages consolidated. Foraging vs FORAGE (verb) is annoying, and there are lots of examples. However, I would not consolidate those two with Foraging (603). But, in this example (which applies to me, unlike 630), I had never clicked on the 'FORAGE (verb)' page since I figured I didn't need to know about the verb; later, I had been reading that page for whatever reason, but then I found that, in fact, it had a lot of important information. So, letting people use the judgment of which pages to click based on what information they think might be there, doesn't seem in the best interests. As long as redirect pages are set up, monolithic pages on single topics seems like the way to go (and really helps to simplify the approach to further page additions or page cleaning); one person thinks a piece of information goes to one page, another to another, and, yuck! DAID (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2015 (CST)