Template talk:Species infobox: Difference between revisions

Template talk:Species infobox (edit)

Revision as of 09:46, May 6, 2024

6,815 bytes added , 1 month ago

→‎Support: Woops.

SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)

1,268

edits

@@ Line 84: / Line 84: @@
 :That was my thought process since I had originally planned to use "subject origin" solely for real-world entities we have pages for, but it was re-adapted later to fit generic derivation vs. specific derivation across similar cases, without the derivative being actually related to what they are based on. As for why we don't do things like list Goombas as derived from Mushrooms - we simply don't have a page for generic mushrooms. Our [[Mushroom]] page is for something highly unrelated to the Goomba. {{User:Somethingone/sig}} 17:13, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
 ::I initially floated the idea a while before the proposal was made, and my reasoning was more "based on something without being a true variant of it," like all the DKC trilogy enemy counterparts, as well as the "real life animal" purpose. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:22, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
+:::"True variant" is a very vague concept though. What makes, for example, [[Beanie]] a "true variant" of [[Goomba]] in a way [[Konk]] isn't one of [[Thwomp]]? [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 17:34, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
+::::Beanie was decided via a proposal I wasn't a part of. I'd prefer it not be listed the way it is, personally, especially if [[Galoomba]] is to be considered not a variant. Konk should also probably be considered a true Thwomp, to be honest. As a related example, Whomps are clearly inspired by Thwomps, but they're only ever described as associates and have a notable amount of differences compared to some others. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:48, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
+::@Somethingone I understand how the subject parameters differ from related species parameters. My question is why we would need to put this info in the infobox. Even with the "animals with articles only" rule (which I do not see anywhere on this template, and which incidentally is broken by the Kremling example I gave earlier that has a category page as subject origin), there's still the problem of how the animal articles are not about the animals themselves, but about the roles they play in media relevant to Mario, which often otherwise not relevant to the article listing it as its subject origin.
+::The example you gave of the Star Bunnies being derived from rabbits does make sense (though I'd argue that its behavior matches up with the ''SM64/3D World/Oddyssey'' rabbits to the point where it may as well be a variant), but I'd like to provide a counterpoint in the [[Rabbid]]s, who are clearly inspired by rabbits yet have nothing to do with the Mario franchise's depictions of them. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 19:10, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
+:::See, that's what makes this confusing because I don't disagree with your logic either, the specific situation with the "real-world" species page is that it's meant to cover a generic subject, but one that has some relevance to the Mario franchise. It was hard for me to identify my problem with that fact even when I had made the original proposal - at the time I hadn't considered simply removing that information from the boxes, because I was more focused on how to solve the confusion the "comparable" parameter for real world species caused. My thinking was "the relationship between in-game entities and their real-world species is not an explicit relationship, but 'comparable' is not accurate either".
+:::As for the animal rule, you're right that the rule doesn't exist on the template anymore. [https://www.mariowiki.com/Special:MobileDiff/3968459 I included it] when I first adjusted the template but it was later broadened (see Doc's conversation here). {{User:Somethingone/sig}} 20:25, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
+== Expand "Relatives" field guidelines to include species with direct connections to a parent species, but significant differences ==
+{{TPP}}
+I've noticed that plenty of articles have been using the "Relatives" section in a way that technically isn't authorized by the guidelines, but that I think could be useful.
+The best example I can come up with is the [[Shroob]] article, which lists all the other Shroob-adjacent species such as [[Yoob]] and [[Shroob Rex]]es as relatives, though they technically aren't Shroobs themselves. Similarly, [[Goomba]]s now have [[Gamboo]] and [[Goombrat]] as relatives, the latter being because Super Mario Run has a statue description of the enemy that states "Nobody is quite sure of their exact relation to Goombas..." Similarly, [[Galoomba]]s are stated in the ''[[Perfect Ban Mario Character Daijiten]]'' to be "a relative of Goomba", and have been stated to be "confused with Goombas" multiple times.
+These instances suggest the existence of species that are ''related'' to other species but not ''direct variations'' of them. The current guidelines of the species infobox do not have any room for these types of relations that are less tenuous than those species that are merely "comparable". The goal of this proposal is to legitimize listing these instances as "related" rather than just "subject origin" or something weird like that.
+The syntax description of the "relatives" field would ideally be changed to something like:
+<blockquote>An entity with a variant-type relationship with the subject in which there are significant visual and/or behavioral differences between the two. Alternatively used if it's not clear who is the variant of whom (if either), such as with [[Spoing]]s and [[Sprangler]]s. </blockquote>
+'''Proposer''': {{User|DrippingYellow}}<br>
+'''Deadline''': May 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT
+=== Support ===
+#{{User|DrippingYellow}} Per proposal.
+#{{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} Might as well.
+=== Oppose ===
+=== Comments ===
+As I said before, problem with using it in those instances is that it leaves out which came first and what is based upon what. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 23:55, April 27, 2024 (EDT)
+:Perhaps, but subject origin has the inverse problem in that it does not in itself suggest a relationship between species, only that it is what the species is based on. Personally, I'd prioritize species' relations to each other over the fact that one took design inspiration from the other (especially in cases where it's ''really'' obvious like with the Galoomba and Goomba, or [[Thwomp]] and [[Whomp]]). [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 15:39, April 28, 2024 (EDT)
+Alternatively, we could expand the scope of the Comparable field instead, or perhaps even introduce a ''new'' field that's inbetween Related and Comparable, since [[Gamboo]]s, [[Burrbo]]s and [[Beanie]]s and such aren't necessarily ''related'' to Goombas, but they are definitely ''similar'' to them, yet the Comparable field currently is for similar enemies that are ''not'' necessarily based on one another (putting [[Koopa Troopa]]s and [[Wild Wendell]]s as examples), even though Gamboos, Burrbos and Beanies are definitely ''inspired'' by Goombas in some way. {{User:Arend/sig}} 13:21, April 28, 2024 (EDT)
+:The thing is, Related is already for species that are for-sure related, but it's difficult to identify which one is the "parent" species. Even with my proposed expansion, I don't really see how something that's "in between" could work. After all, you can't get much more uncertain of a species relationship than when one has a few similarities to another species, but still is very clearly a different type of entity, thus only being comparable. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 15:49, April 28, 2024 (EDT)