Template talk:Species infobox

This should be only used on Major Species in more than one game, or something we don't want articles to be over crowed with templates like say if we added it to the Gloomba article. Or maybe not to be used on Sub Species. Xzelion^ETC

Also I'll start adding these tomorrow. Xzelion^ETC

This template will get way too big for a lot of major species. Just think of all the notable Goombas, all their sub-species, and all their affiliations throughout the years. That's why we have templates and lists at the bottom of the articles. -- Son of Suns

"Orgin"

The variable "species-orgin" and the description "Species Orgin" (missing an i in origin) has been used on all species pages for almost a year and nobody noticed? I don't think it's a good idea to edit all sub-species pages to correct that, maybe we should keep the variable name and just change the description to origin? - Cobold (talk · contribs) 12:54, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

Expandable

I'm not good with templates. Is there a way to allow the sub-species and notable members sections to become collapsable? Hello, I'm Time Turner.

Never mind, I found out. It's with |expand=expandable Hello, I'm Time Turner.

Derived and Parent species

I'm a bit curious if this refers to a design standpoint, a biological standpoint, or a mixture thereof. If it's a design standpoint, would it actually make Rocky Wrench the "parent species" to Monty Mole? Should Koopa be listed as a derived species of Shellcreeper? The Smash Wii U/3DS stated they're the "ancestors," after all... Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2018 (EST)

I have done the thing with the Koopa and Shellcreeper, since it's outright stated in a game, but I'm still curious over the exact rules regarding the meaning of this. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2018 (EST)

As far as I know, last time Nintendo made an article about something reminiscent of biological affiliation was on page 193Media:PEGMCE page 193.png of the Perfect Ban Mario Character Daijiten/Perfect Edition of the Great Mario Character Encyclopedia, like 24 years ago. From what I've seen, the best we'll ever get now is that the member of the Turtle Tribe are turtles, that Glydon is similar to flying lizards, that Draggadon is a dragon, that Plessie is a dinosaur and so on... so it makes sense to associate from a design point of view, specifying the nature of the association. In the case of SSB4 we can just report the text and the affiliation as is, the problem is that the original text was improperly translated (or maybe they went with the PAL terms, because in Italy Koopas are the Koopa Troopas, while Bowser Jr. is sometimes rather described as a little turtle even in made-up parts). It's obvious that Koopa Troopas are based on the previous Shellcreepers due to their shared behavior and design, but most other members of the Turtle Tribe pretty much only share being turtles from a design point of view.--Mister Wu (talk) 07:47, 13 March 2018 (EDT)

Simplify terminology to take into account different enemies that are actually of the same species

Cases like those of Flutters and Baby Cheeps show that sometimes members of the same species that are part of a subgroup (e.g. baby version, grown-up versions) might still be on separate pages for various reasons, including having own name and peculiar appearance. For this reason, I think we should remove the species parts in the various parts of the infobox so that we no longer imply that being on different pages always means that they are different species. After all, Related, Derived and Parent should still be clear enough. Should we go on updating the template? Are there other changes you think might improve the template?--Mister Wu (talk) 08:32, April 8, 2019 (EDT)

I personally like the word "entity" with this, as it's not as vague as not having a noun at all, but would describe any relevant subject well. I also find that there potentially should be a section for a "sister entity" like with the case of Spoing and Sprangler, where they are clearly partners of some sort, but lack any sort of hierarchy between them, and simply listing them as related alongside Scuttlebug seems a tad off. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 10:48, April 8, 2019 (EDT)

After a discussion we had, these are changes that can be implemented to avoid mentioning species:

• Reanme Parent species to Variant of
• Rename Derived species to Variants
• Rename Related species to Comparables
• Add a Relatives field for particular cases in which none of these fields are appropriate

Comments are welcome, if nobody is against these changes, they will soon be implemented.--Mister Wu (talk) 18:58, August 3, 2019 (EDT)

I think comparable should be singular. So, for example:

Goomba:

Variants: Paragoomba, Hyper Goomba, etc

Relatives: Galoomba, Goom, Goombo, etc

Comparable: Masked Ghoul

Strollin' Stu could potentially fit in "relatives" or "comparable." It's not a perfect system, but it's better than what we currently have IMO Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:40, August 3, 2019 (EDT)

Wouldn't it take an insane amount of work to rename all of these? Results May Vary (talk) 22:43, August 3, 2019 (EDT)

For the renamed paramters, we just rename the displayed text for now, the names of the parameters are kept as-is - renaming the parameteres would be a nice long-term goal, but it must be seen if a bot can do such work, in the meantime changing the displayed text is fast and addresses the relevant point of shifting the focus from the species, better fitting the current usage of the template.--Mister Wu (talk) 23:19, August 3, 2019 (EDT)

Agreed with Doc, comparables plural feels clunky and awkward. The rest sounds good. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 13:04, August 4, 2019 (EDT)

I applied the changes, if there are other remarks, corrections or suggestions about the changes, please post them in this discussion.--Mister Wu (talk) 20:25, August 11, 2019 (EDT)

Agreed. -- FanOfYoshi 13:39, August 12, 2019 (EDT)

Terminology

It was fine the way it was before! MarioLover54 (talk) 20:22, August 19, 2019 (EDT)

It really wasn't. Please read the above section. Continuing to spam pages with "it was fine before" counts as using talk pages for unconstructive purposes, which you were previously blocked for, and may be blocked for again if this continues without an actual argument. Doomhiker (talk) 20:36, August 19, 2019 (EDT)

Repurposing subject origin?

There's a unused parameter called "species_origin" in this template. I'm guessing it got replaced by parent_species, but I thought of a potential use for it: why not apply to generic species subjects (or Mario-ized versions of some such)? In this scenario, it would be used for subjects related to penguin, crab, crow, etc. It'd look better than sharing the same space with comparable species. LinkTheLefty (talk) 02:44, October 19, 2021 (EDT)

I really like this idea Somethingone (talk) 06:25, April 25, 2022 (EDT)

Ax the comparable parameter

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit any of the sections in the proposal. If you wish to discuss the article, do so in a new header below the proposal.

canceled by proposer
This paramater has been bothering me for a little while now. It's primary usage is to list species which have some similarities to them even if they're unrelated and I feel it's not been very helpful and quite often comparisons are really reached for. I might even "compare" this to the former "affiliation" parameter which listed characters associated with the subject and was scrapped for not being fully helpful. Like with affiliation, the parameter will not be removed from the template entirely so that it remains visible in edit histories but it will be removed from all mainspace articles.

Proposer: Swallow (talk)
Deadline: February 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Swallow (talk) Per proposal. If anyone has any ideas on how this parameter can be improved rather than scrapped entirely, feel free to leave a comment and I may edit the proposal to add another option but I can't think of any myself.

Oppose

1. Super Mario RPG (talk) I think it's fine keeping the comparable parameters, as there are species with very similar traits to one another but otherwise not in the same family, such as Gnawty and Neek.
2. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Previously, it was "related species," I had it split into "comparable" and "relatives" to differentiate between things obviously intended to be related (but neither derived nor parent to) and things that have obvious similarities. For instance, you will not persuade me that Broozer shouldn't mention Chargin' Chuck and/or Boom Boom in its infobox, the behavioral similarities are just too obvious.
3. Arend (talk) I think it's still useful in showing similar species that aren't necessarily based on, or directly related to, one another, such as Kab-omb and Hanabihei (both are Bob-ombs or Bob-omb-like creatures based on fireworks), or Gold Ghost, Greenie and Goob (standard ghost enemies from their respective Luigi's Mansion game)
4. Pseudo (talk) Per all.
5. MegaBowser64 (talk) I use this feature quite often while browsing. Per all
6. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.

Point of derived subject/subject origin?

Looking at the various articles, one part of the infobox that has always struck me as really unnecessary is the derived subject/subject origin sections. The information put in these sections are usually surface level observations that can be easily mentioned in the intro paragraph, rather than dedicating an entire slot of the infobox to it. Like, no duh, Bumblebees have their origins from real-world bees, Krumple is the successor to Krusha and Kruncha.

And there's also deep implications in adding a parameter for, effectively, design inspiration. We may as well put mushrooms and chestnuts as the subject origin for Goombas, or turtles as the origin for Shellcreepers, or crocodiles for Kremlings (oh, wait, we actually did that!), or add pirates as the subject origin for all the DKC2 Kremlings... you get the idea. The only use I could think of for the derived subjects parameter is maybe creating a shortcut for characters/species based on real-world animals that actually have articles such as frogs without having to go their respective category. DrippingYellow (talk) 16:18, April 24, 2024 (EDT)

Hey, person who made the proposal for that here. I made those parameters out of a (minor-ish) issue with how it was handled before; the "subject origin" that the in-game species were based on were listed as "comparable", meaning, "similar yet not related". That doesn't make much sense for me, at least, since listing a bee enemy as "comparable" to the real-world subject's page is inaccurate then, since the in-game species is a bee, just not related on an in-universe variant level. (I put Bumblebee and Bee as the example on the template for a reason; previously on the Bee page, all other bee species were listed as "comparable", except for the YS Bumblebee, which was listed as a "variant". See my talk page for more information.)

In essence my main point for those parameters was to distinguish between when something is derived from another species on an in-game level, or an in-concept level specifically for a concept that is both a real-world species and that we have a page for. The best example I can give for my original idea is the Bunny page; the Glowing/Mega Rabbits are "variants", since they are specifically based on an in-game iteration of the entity covered on the Rabbit page, in concept and mechanics. Meanwhile, the Star Bunnies are "derived subjects" since they are just rabbits as a species; there is no in-game "rabbit" entity whom they are based off of mechanically. In other words, "let's make a character who is a rabbit" vs. "let's make a character based on the rabbits from x game".

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. ^S _o ^m _e ^t _h ⁱ _n ^g _o ⁿ _e ! 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. 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? 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. 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 Rabbids, who are clearly inspired by rabbits yet have nothing to do with the Mario franchise's depictions of them. 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. I included it when I first adjusted the template but it was later broadened (see Doc's conversation here). ^S _o ^m _e ^t _h ⁱ _n ^g _o ⁿ _e ! 20:25, April 24, 2024 (EDT)

Expand "Relatives" field guidelines to include species with direct connections to a parent species, but significant differences

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit any of the sections in the proposal. If you wish to discuss the article, do so in a new header below the proposal.

expand guidelines 5-0
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 Rexes as relatives, though they technically aren't Shroobs themselves. Similarly, Goombas 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, Galoombas 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:

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 Spoings and Spranglers.

Proposer: DrippingYellow (talk)
Deadline: May 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to May 19, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to May 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. DrippingYellow (talk) Per proposal.
2. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) Might as well.
3. Jdtendo (talk) Per proposal.
4. Somethingone (talk) - As the person who made the subject_origin parameter, I don't really mind this.
5. MegaBowser64 (talk) Purr all

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. 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). 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 Gamboos, Burrbos and Beanies 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 Troopas and Wild Wendells as examples), even though Gamboos, Burrbos and Beanies are definitely inspired by Goombas in some way. rend (talk) (edits) 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. DrippingYellow (talk) 15:49, April 28, 2024 (EDT)

Personally, I'd suggest expanding the scope of what is considered a variant to include in some way such that even cases where one enemy is technically not a "subtype" of the other can be included. Goombrat not being considered a variant of Goomba has been bugging me for a while. Especially when other enemies like Shymore and Monty Mole are considered varaints (of Shy Guy and Rocky Wrench). Blinker (talk) 14:09, May 23, 2024 (EDT)

Are derived subjects next?

This talk page or section has a conflict or question that needs to be answered. Please try to help and resolve the issue by leaving a comment.

Recently, a proposal overwhelmingly decided to remove the use of this template's "subject_origin" parameter. That's fine, but the option that passed apparently didn't involve the "derived_subjects" parameter, which was made in response to the original parameter's short-lived revival run. As a result, there's a vestige of the revival run lying around several pages that leads to one-way infobox navigation (which I think looks off-putting and I was thinking of proposing strictness so we avoid doing that from now on). For example, on the cannon page, Bill Blaster is listed as one of the derived subjects, as Bill Blasters are based on real-world cannons while generic cannons technically appear later in the franchise. That makes sense for the intent of the parameters, but if you go to the Bill Blaster page, the infobox no longer has a respective "cannon" entry for easy back-and-forth infobox navigation. What should we do about that? LinkTheLefty (talk) 14:42, July 4, 2024 (EDT)