"Species Origin" section cleanup

Binarystep

Binarystep

East of Dry Dry Desert
Moving it here since it didn't need a proposal.

To recap, I've noticed that the "Species Origin" section on most articles is a mess. It's supposed to be for confirmed parent species to the article's subject, e.g. Paragoomba's species origin is Goomba. But for some reason (likely due to "origin" usually refering to a real life thing being referenced on most game wikis), people keep using it to mean "looks kind of like" or "this type of thing", leading to things like "skeleton" being the species origin for some undead enemy, or a real life animal without a wiki page as an origin for a heavily anthropomorphized version, which would be like saying Koopas are a subspecies of "turtle" or something. Here's my idea of how to fix this:

First off, "Species Origin" should probably be renamed "Parent Species" to avoid confusion, likely preventing (most) people from listing non-species things there.

I also think "generic species" articles (e.g. Bee, Crab, Dinosaur, Dragon, Shark) shouldn't have subspecies sections or be listed as parent species for the same reason we don't say Monty Moles are a subspecies of mole or Goombas are a subspecies of mushroom.

Finally, I think we should remove speculative parent species (not all Mario series fish are Cheep Cheep subspecies, for example), and only use it for confirmed/very likely cases. My method of determining whether two species are related is based on multiple factors: Names (in any language), physical appearance, behavior, and ingame/manual/guide info (if available).
 
Seeing as I was the one who originally suggested "parent species"in the comments of the deleted proposal (MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_42#Set_Clear_Rules_as_to_What_.22Species_Origin.22_Means), I of course support the motion to change the title (although I actually do still feel like a proposal would be best once the kinks are ironed out, as Species-infobox (Template:Species-infobox) is such a pervasive template, and having a proposal in the archives is a lot easier to reference should anyone question the section in the future).

I also agree that the header should only be used for species that actually are consciously spun off of other species, and vice-versa for the "subspecies" header (although, I feel this should be renamed to "derived species"): the "related species" header can be for things that are morphologically similar but developed separately (and the nav templates and categories at the bottom of the article can be used for the things more vicariously related). Rampant speculation and non-species should already not be put in the templates, but it never hurts to reaffirm things like this, and I can also get behind the idea to not use parent or derivative species for generic things like Dinosaur and whatnot too - again, "related species" and the nav templates can be used for that.

As for what can be parent/derived species, that's usually obvious, but it'll probably be a case-by-case things a lot of the time as well, for trickier things that requite non-English names and whatnot.

Another thing to consider when reviewing the use of these features of {{species-infobox}} is nestedness to avoid redundancy and super-long lists (in general, these conventions are already used, but again, it doesn;t hurt to go over them). For example, things spun off Paratroopas should only list them as the parent species and not Koopa Troopas, meanwhile Koopa Troopas would only mention Paratroopas as derivatives and leave the derivatives of the Paratroopas for the Paratroopa's infobox. Usually there should only be one parent, but in some cases (particularly when wings are involved), there may be too, like Paratroopa and Dry Bones for Parabones.

Finally, there's the matter of what to do with sets of RPG enemies: do they all have equal footing or should some be considered derivatives of others? I love nesting things, so part of me wants to say whichever of the set is seen first is the parent of the subsequent power-upgrades, but that doesn't always work such as in Paper Mario: TTYD where the derived Dull Bones appear before Dry Bones. Therefore, it'll be easier to include all RPG enemies on equal footing, so they'd all be in the overall parent species' "derivatives" section, and simplu use "related species" to link to each other. Of course, usually these articles use the applicable RPG enemy box, which works for one-off species, but for recurring species, I sorta feel like it'd be best to start using {{species-infobox}} instead of just choosing one of the enemy boxes, and instead put those all together in a stats section. That is sort of a motion that needs to be carried all on its own, of course, but we might as well start thinking about how to handle the situation if it ever happens.

Anyway, here's an example of what a group of inter-linking pages using the parent/derived/related species headers properly (again, taking from the proposal comments), would look like (pretending the one-off RPG enemies had {{species-infobox}} instead of {{smrpgenemy}} for the sake of argument):

Colossal Koopa Paratroopa
parent species: Gargantua Koopa Troopa
Koopa Paratroopa
related species: Heavy Troopa
Tub-O-Troopa

Gargantua Koopa Troopa
parent species: Koopa Troopa
derivative species: Colossal Koopa Paratroopa
related species: Ankoopa
Big Dry Bones

Heavy Troopa
parent species: Koopa Paratroopa
related species: Tub-O-Troopa
Gargantua Koopa Troopa

Tub-O-Troopa
related species: Heavy Troopa
Gargantua Koopa Troopa

Koopa Paratroopa
parent species: Koopa Troopa
derivative species: Colossal Koopa Paratroopa
Heavy Troopa
Tub-O-Troopa
Parabones
[...]

Dry Bones
parent species: Koopa Troopa
derivative species: Big Dry Bones
Parabones
Vomer
[...]

Koopa Troopa
parent species: Shellcreeper
derivative species: Koopa Paratroopa
Dry Bones
Gargantua Koopa Troopa
Ankoopa
[...]
related species: Koopa Striker
Magikoopa
[...]

Shellcreeper
derivative species: Koopa Troopa
Click to expand...
 
I think "Related Species" should be renamed "Similar Species", so things that aren't confirmed parent species/subspecies but are otherwise very similar could be listed as well, though that might be unnecessary.
 
No, you're right, "similar species" would be better (I mentioned it in the proposal too, I was just focused too much on getting the parent/derived stuff right to remember, lol).
 
The suggestions seem good to me. I think this whole "subspecies" thing can be an aspect of "frequently misused words in the wiki", no?
 
Good point, I was basing that off of its appearance, but considering it was redesigned to look like a generic cannon, it's probably not related to Bill Blasters.
 
Few more nitpicks:

That's enough for now, I hope.
 
Harry Hedgehog's Japanese name means "Super Porcupo", and Fang's Japanese name is based on Swooper's. Not sure about the others, I'll check them out.

EDIT: And the supposed Thwomp subspecies have Japanese names based on Thwomp's, with the exceptions of Grrrolls, which I'll remove.
 
I've never been a big fan of tying species together solely through the name, and especially just the Japanese name. It's too much of a stretch for me, like how koala bears aren't actually bears; the name doesn't automatically define the thing.
 
Another thing to consider is that some things are combinations of parent species (i.e. the Patratroopa examples) which a linear nested list can't really show.

Mario Party Σ said:
The suggestions seem good to me. I think this whole "subspecies" thing can be an aspect of "frequently misused words in the wiki", no?
Click to expand...
Yeah. The question is whether it should be done via proposal since it's so widespread and will even require some category changes (i.e. this has to be removed from over 600 pages (Category:Sub-Species), or whether we should just make an executive/admin-approved decision based on the fact that it's, well, wrong.
 
Walkazo said:
Another thing to consider is that some things are combinations of parent species (i.e. the Patratroopa examples) which a linear nested list can't really show.

Mario Party Σ said:
The suggestions seem good to me. I think this whole "subspecies" thing can be an aspect of "frequently misused words in the wiki", no?
Click to expand...
Yeah. The question is whether it should be done via proposal since it's so widespread and will even require some category changes (i.e. this has to be removed from over 600 pages (Category:Sub-Species), or whether we should just make an executive/admin-approved decision based on the fact that it's, well, wrong.
Click to expand...
Holy crap. Well, this is just like other frequently misused terms (like "remix", which is further propagated by Smash 4, dammit Sakurai). I guess it's more like a "come across and rename" in the same vein as lowercasing subheaders when necessary. It shouldn't be a proposal since it assumes that the opposing side will have a valid point other than "it will take some work". After all, we had to split Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS / Wii U into two, which includes links, categories, and image categories. Finally, we don't let misinformation ring, even if it is widespread. I think the latter should be the case.
 
My tendency is to play it a bit too safe and passively when it's something that really matters to me - lest it's just the personal bias temping me to power abuse, but I like the way you think. I'll run it by the other admins so I can say "admin-approved" in good faith and then add something to MarioWiki:Good Writing. I won't be able to do any of the subsequent gnomework until the Prima maps are taken care of, but it'll be a nice easy project to look forward to being part of.
 
Well, of course this is something I'd agree with, since I'm naturally a bit tight on wording anyway. I wonder if other nondemoted sysop users would want this to happen. But yeah, if this whole terminology is blatantly wrong, we shouldn't continue using it simply because it's so commonplace. That's a logical fallacy.

But anyway, this shouldn't be something to play safe. I'd like to be a bit aggressive in this case since it's the facts rather than personal opinion.
 
Isn't this kinda like using the term "beta elements" for everything that came up before a game was released? There was a proposal that wanted to change it to "pre-release elements," since that would be the "correct" term, but the admins vetoed it since most people would understand what was being meant by beta elements. It seems like they're in the same boat to me.
 
Well, with "beta elements", it's giving us a handy umbrella term, but with "subspecies" it's going in the opposite direction by breaking up a nice, straightforward, single term, resulting in inconsistencies all across the wiki. Some pages say "species", some "subspecies", others "sub-species", and maybe even some using "sub species" - it's a mess, and there's no good reason to keep it like that. "different things = different articles = different species" is a much simper terminology rule, without no around with what it's based on or if it's too major or however the hell people decide which term to use currently. Just like how "not in final game = list in subpage = beta element" is nice and simple and doesn't require digging up exactly when in development something was chucked and all that jazz.
 
There isn't really any harm in keeping the term, though? "Sub-species" is used this way all over the place, not just this wiki. It's a pretty common term, and removing it would confuse a lot of people...
 
Just because a term is constantly misused all over the place doesn't mean it's acceptable to use it in more professional areas like what this wiki is trying to achieve.

It's like in Wikipedia, you name your article "seagull" rather than "gull" because that's the layman term to describe the bird that most people use when it's not even correct at all and gives bird experts a headache. I'm sure Walkazo can understand this analogy I'm trying to make.
 
Indeed, just because other places get it wrong doesn't mean we should too: on the contrary, stopping the spread of misinformation is doing readers a better service.

Binarystep said:
There isn't really any harm in keeping the term, though? "Sub-species" is used this way all over the place, not just this wiki. It's a pretty common term, and removing it would confuse a lot of people...
Click to expand...
Yes there is: it's propagating the misuse of a specific term and causing inconsistency all across the wiki - which, if you ask me, is WAY more confusing than using a single label for everything, not to mention sloppy as hell. If you still wanna talk about relatedness, just say informal things like "variety" or "type" without breaking out the erroneous jargon: most articles actually already do that and get by just fine.

And as for an example of the inconsistencies the term's causing, the Ice Piranha Plant article describes it as a "variety" of Piranha Plant, and while the text mentions Frost Piranha as "another ice-based Piranha Plant sub-species", the infobox lists it as a "related species" (meanwhile, the Frost Piranha describes itself as a "subspecies" and the Piranha Plant infobox lists them both as "sub-species", although that may change to "derivative species" sooner or later); furthermore, its categories include both "Cat:Sub-Species" (one of only four such categories) and "Cat:New Super Mario Bros. U Species" (one of a few dozen game-based species template), and in the navigation template (Template:Piranha Plants) the header is for "species", not subspecies/sub-species (as with every other "species nav template (MW:NAV#Species_templates)").
 
I really should've worded my last post better. Anyway, here's my idea of how we could define the terms:

Sub-species - A species officially confirmed or extremely likely to be descended from another. E.g. Paragoombas are a sub-species of Goombas, but Hyper Spiky Goombas aren't, they're a subspecies of Spiky Goombas and Hyper Goombas.

Parent species - What a sub-species is officially confirmed or extremely likely to be descended from. E.g. Hammer Bros are the parent species of Fire Bros, but Koopa Troopas aren't.

Similar species - A species similar but not directly related to another. E.g. Fire Piranha Plants are similar to Ice Piranha Plants, but one isn't a sub-species of the other.

Variant - Two versions of one species that aren't different enough to really be different species, per se. Basically a term for SMRPG palette swaps and the various M&L:SS enemies with the same name but different stats. (As this is RPG exclusive, it wouldn't need a section on the species infobox) E.g. Stronger palette swaps of enemies encountered later in RPGs are variants of the "originals", but Snifits aren't a variant of Shy Guys.
 
There's no point having two names for derivatives (variant and sub-species): if anything, it's complicating things more and adding speculation and judgement calls. Just use one formal term for everything spun-off of another species, and for that term, use something that isn't completely inaccurate, and only use it when it's relevant to talk about interrelatedness (i.e. the infoboxes, species lists and article introductions (which could actually use informal language instead), but not categories). "Derivative" fits the bill nicely - and bonus points for "derivative species" following the same pattern as "parent species" and "similar species", which will be good for infobox aesthetics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back