Category talk:Petpets

Categories

Since there are about 430 Petpets, I was wondering if the list could be made a little more overseeable by adding a few more subcategories. How about also making world-petpet categories? Like a Shenkuu-Petpets category and a Krawk Island-Petpets category (and possibly a Cooking Pot-Petpets category). I'd also appreciate a category for Petpet characters. It's highly unlikely that any Petpet species would ever get enough individuals to make categories like we have for Neopets. A category for famous Petpets (including the "big ones" like the Snowbeast and Turmaculus) would be logical. Lastly, do we need a Petpet Protection League category? Sooner or later, every Petpet will fall under that category (minus the ones only obtainable through the Lab Ray). In fact, a big amount of the Petpets already belongs to that category. DreamingLady 08:19, 14 Jul 2007 (UTC)

You bring very valid points. :)

1. Having specific categories for petpet types would be smart rather than having all petpets in one category. The categories would of course be named by what type they are (Spooky Petpets, Legendary Petpets, etc.), which means regular petpets (like the Spyder) would remain in original category.
2. For Petpets whic relate to the Cooking Pot, i think a simple "Cooking Pot" category would suffice (which would include all articles which relate to the Cooking Pot).
3. What shall we name the category for famous/character petpets? "Petpet Characters"? "Famous Petpets"?
4. The PPL category does seem pretty redundant when you put it like that. It's only other purpose is to signify what other articles besides petpets relate to it. Even with that, does it really need to be there?

This is good discussion. Thank you for bringing it up. *thumbs up* --Jacob 14:04, 14 Jul 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the support. But,

1. I think we should hold on to one cover-all category. Now, I do not have any true arguments for it, just that I think some people (like me) might appreciate it. Neoitems has no Petpets category (the one named "Petpets" only covers the ones from the original category), and it annoys me beyond words. It certainly helped me appreciate this earlier mentioned page a lot more when I found it. Just for simple browsing, a category covering all Petpets is a must. Also, and I admit cases like this one are rare, the Werhond article would get in "serious trouble" if there was no main Petpets category. Yes, for the very few Petpets that do exist, but not as the Petpet item, we could just pick the most likely category, but that wouldn't be very accurate. As for the original Petpet subcategory, why not just name it that? Original Petpets, or maybe Neopian Petpets (as "Neopian" is most often associated with "original"/"Neopia Central").
2. A Cooking Pot category would indeed be a better idea.
3. Unless someone comes up with a better name, I think "Petpet Characters" will do.

DreamingLady 19:20, 14 Jul 2007 (UTC)

More discussion! :D

1. Of course this original category will remain. It will be what ties all the specific petpet categories together (and can be used to categorize unreleased petpets as you've mentioned). For petpets part of the regular petpet category, "Original Petpets" could probably work.
2. There is already a "Characters" category. Would "Petpet Characters" simply replace that category in articles? Could work...but seems to remind me of the "Faeries" category I made. whenever a character what a faerie as well, I tagged it with that category. Though this is a slightly different case, isn't it? ;) In either case, does this mean we will need to create a "Petpetpet Characters" category as well?

That's my input. :) --Jacob 10:44, 17 Jul 2007 (UTC)