"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.