Talk:Master List of Djinn

This page is not up to par with wiki standards, and feels like a Strategy Guide instead. Also, it doesn't talk about which Djinn won't be in Isaac's possession if you didn't transfer, and doesn't even discuss the possibility of finding Djinn in special areas if you didn't transfer every last one of them from the first game. Marandahir 16:31, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Renovation needed?
Two reasons for renovating - for starters, this list looks very bad, as mentioned above. However, I believe plans were also mentioned in another discussion page about making this a list where each djinn in the whole series is listed once and only once. Perhaps we could start a discussion on how the tables would look in such a list?

Personally, I could see it using the Name (with link to page), then GBA icon, then DD icon (both icons if applicable), the stat boosts, then use the short in-game description found in the games. I don't think those changed between games for the djinn that were shared, at least. This sound good, or does someone want to add something? Rolina 16:46, 12 August 2012 (CDT)


 * It sounds good, though I think the best way to discuss how it should look and appear is to put a draft of the table here on the talk page first. But there's definitely plenty of cases where a description like "Strike to reduce a foe's defense." is replaced with "Shatter a foe's defense with numbing cold.", and looking at the articles on the Djinn that appear between generations shows that. It'd have to be determined whether all Djinn sections in the table should actually have two description sections because of this, or if each Djinni with different descriptions lists both of them side-by-side in the same cell, or if only the most recent description for a given Djinni should be posted. Erik the Appreciator 17:59, 12 August 2012 (CDT)
 * Right now, we have a max of two descriptions for each djinni, but who's to say that won't change if/when the next game comes out? making this even trickier if we want to plan for the possible future. If you take that into account, I think I'd go with the most recent description. Another question I have is to the organization of the page. Shall we divide by type then list them in a numerical order of some kind? (when they first appeared perhaps) or maybe list them in alphabetical order. ~ dkpat 18:36, 12 August 2012 (CDT)