Forum:CT Archive/Species and subspecies

I've been working on a few articles on subspecies, and I've run into a problem: namely, how to treat subspecies in both infobox fields for characters, and in "Appearance" and "Sources" sections for articles on the parent species. The purpose of this CT is thus to decide how to display species and subspecies information on character and "species" articles. I've divided it into a section on each. Articles affected by these votes would be the main species articles for the Trandoshan (which have the Saurin subspecies), Stennes (species) (with its Stennes Shifter subspecies), Arkanian (with the Arkanian Offshoot subspecies), Nikto (with several subspecies), Horansi (with several subspecies), and probably a bunch of others I'm forgetting. Articles on the characters who belong to those species would be affected as well. ~ Savage  12:10, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * NB: This CT applies only to species and subspecies. Separate species who share a common ancestor (such as Humans and various near-Human species) and species divided into races (such as Twi'leks) are not within the scope of this CT. In short, if the source material doesn't call use the term "subspecies," it need not concern us. ~ Savage BOB sig.png 18:28, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Vote 1: Character infoboxes
The Character infobox and its derivatives currently only includes a |species= field. Thus, the question of how to display a subspecies identification has been unclear. Below are some options.

Option A
Add a |subspecies= field to all character infoboxes. Characters who belong to a subspecies will have information in both the |species= and |subspecies= fields.

Option B
Display the subspecies as a bullet below the main species identification in the |species= field. See sidebar for an example.


 * 1) I think I prefer this option as the least work while still displaying all relevant information. I could go for a new field as well, as long as a bot-makers help with the infobox updating. ~ Savage BOB sig.png 12:10, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Option C
For characters with a subspecies, display only the subspecies in the |species= field. This option is technically (and biologically) inaccurate, but it is simpler. See sidebar for an example.


 * 1) I see no reason to add an extra field to the infobox, and no reason to list parent species. If a character is listed as a Saurin, then list him as a Saurin. To use your example, Saurins appear to have a culture and a homeworld wholly separate from the baseline Trandoshans, so placing this information in a character infobox makes no sense. Relevant to the Saurin article, yes, but not the character article. Also, if you do this, I would assume you mean to apply it to Near-Human races as well? So Thrawn would be listed as *Near-Human **Chiss? since they would technically be a subspecies of the Human race, no? - Cavalier One FarStar.svg( Squadron channel ) 17:42, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it would not apply to near-Humans. The operative words here are species and subspecies. To the best of my knowledge, near-Humans are completely separate species, just ones that happened to evolve from a common ancestor somewhere down the line. And you're free to keep your vote here, of course, but listing a species as Saurin is technically incorrect, since subspecies is a different biological concept. That's what I hope to clear up in the CT. ~ Savage BOB sig.png 18:19, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Option D
Display the subspecies in parentheses after the main species identification in the |species= field. See sidebar for an example.


 * 1) I wanted to remind you that there's also the option to keep how it is. For instance normally a Rutian Twi'lek would be listed in the character infobox as "Twi'lek ((Rutian)", I support keeping that way and not A, B nor C. Winterz (talk) 17:07, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) *I've added this as a voting option. Please feel free to move your comment if you didn't intend to vote for this option! ~ Savage BOB sig.png 17:20, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) **Thanks, by the way...Good work here. Winterz (talk) 17:27, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) ***Actually, there's some discrepancy about the way its formatted. Some articles use "Twi'lek (Lethan)", others "Lethan Twi'lek". I prefer the latter option, personally. - Cavalier One FarStar.svg( Squadron channel ) 17:42, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) I'd prefer trying to keep the information on one line, if possible. The bullet makes the section look weird to me and if it is a Trandoshan, whatever the subspecies, I say the Infobox should reflect that. NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 17:50, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) I overlooked this option when setting up the CT, but I think I prefer it as more compact while not sacrificing any information. ~ Savage BOB sig.png 18:20, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Per Naru. Putting both on one line looks better, avoids the issue of adding a new field to the infobox, and keeps it accurate. &mdash;MJ&mdash; Comlink Tuesday, October 2, 2012, 18:24 UTC
 * 8) Per Naru and Savage. --LelalMekha (talk) 21:42, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Agreed. Corellian PremierRobotech.jpg along the watchtower 21:58, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) I like this option best. Educates people as to the existance of subspecies status. --Eyrezer (talk) 07:42, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) I like this option as I've already used it for Zuckuss: Gand (Breather) It seemed like a logical step to make at the time.  Trak Nar  Ramble on 07:48, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Vote 2: Species Appearances and Sources
Currently, we are inconsistent in how we handle the "Appearances" and "Sources" sections of articles on species that have known subspecies. In some cases, we include the appearances of subspecies in the main species article (as with Horansi), while in others, we treat the main article as the "generic" article on the species and only include appearances of the "mainline" version of the species and not the subspecies (as with Trandoshan). This vote will clear up how to treat these cases. Regardless of which of these options is chosen, the article on the species as a whole will still discuss the subspecies; this vote only concerns "Appearances" and "Sources." Also, the specific page for the subspecies will list only those subspecies' appearances and sources regardless of what we decide here.

Option A
List all appearances and sources of members of the species, regardless of subspecies, on the main species' page. Make no indication of which appearances and sources refer to which version of the species. Example: All appearances of the Saurin would be included on the Trandoshan page and not distinguished in any way, so the "Appearances" list on the Trandoshan page would include:
 * Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope

Option B
List all appearances and sources of members of the species, regardless of subspecies, on the main species' page. Indicate which pertain only to a subspecies using the C template. For example, the Trandoshan page might list
 * Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
 * 1) Because members of the subspecies are still full-fledged members of the "mainline" or base species, I think it's important that the main species page list all those appearances and sources. However, I think distinguishing them in some way is helpful. This is the most elegant way to do it, I think. ~ Savage BOB sig.png 12:10, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Bob. &mdash;MJ&mdash; Training Room Tuesday, October 2, 2012, 18:38 UTC

Option C
List all appearances and sources of members of the species, regardless of subspecies, on the main species' page, but put the subspecies' appearances and sources in separate subsections of "Appearances" and "Sources." For example, the Trandoshan page might list:

Appearances

 * Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back

Saurin

 * Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope

Option D
List only the appearances and sources of the most common or baseline version of the species on the main species page. In essence, this option treats all subspecies as full-fledged species in their own rights. If this were chosen, the Trandoshan page would include no appearances of the Saurin subspecies.


 * 1) This seems the best one. If they only mention a "Saurin" I don't see why Trandoshan should be listed as mentioned as well. For instance in an article that mentions the word "Stormtrooper", Galactic Empire won't be listed even though the concept Stormtrooper is part of the Empire. Winterz (talk) 17:01, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Winterz. List the actual appearance, not an implied one. - Cavalier One FarStar.svg( Squadron channel ) 17:42, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Option D2

 * 1) Sorry for adding this section without discussion. I agree with Option D, but it needs one extra requirement. The main article's Appearance section needs some note like "For appearances of the subspecies, see the Saurian article" and/or "For appearances of the suspecies, see the Lethan and Rutian articles." The subspecies is still an appearance of the species, so their appearances are relevant. This way, the information of where the subspecies appeared apart from the main species would be sequestered, organized specifically, and connected to the main species. NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 18:01, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Note that Aqualish would also be affected, for record. There's another minor aspect to this. In the case of a species like Twi'lek, they have Rutian and Lethan subspecies and I believe they've been called "Rutian Twi'lek" in sources. Would that be acceptable for them, or would we forgo that syntax in favor of what we decide here for consistency? Like how we capitalize Human and books generally don't. NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 17:45, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it would apply to Twi'leks at all, actually. I don't know of any source that refers to Lethans and Rutians as subspecies, only as names for Twi'leks of a specific skin tone. In other words, races. The same way Lando Calrissian and other dark-skinned members of the Human species are not a separate subspecies, these Twi'leks are not separate subpsecies of Twi'leks; rather, they are named races (indeed, they are called "races" in The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia). ~ Savage  BOB sig.png 18:25, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * I've updated the blurb at the top of the CT to better spell out what species this is intended to cover. Races are a separate matter we can consider at some other time. ~ Savage BOB sig.png 18:29, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah. Cool beans. NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 18:35, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Bith will also be affected, with the Aalagar and the Y'bith. Another clarification that you may like to address is that the Species infobox currently only has a field for races and not for subspecies. Presumably it should have both if we are treating e two differently. This decision probably does not need a CT though. --Eyrezer (talk) 19:47, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Good point on the infobox. Could a template wizard please add a subspecies field, preferably above the "races" one? Biologically speaking, races are a level of genetic variation that lies an order below a subspecies. Subspecies can have significant morphological distinctions, such as vast disparities in average adult size or skeletal structures between one subspecies and another. Races, rather, are often considered purely social or cultural in nature and have no biological component at all aside from some cosmetic differences like skin color. At any rate, the source material treats the two as distinct, so it would be wise for our species infobox to do the same. ~ Savage BOB sig.png 20:23, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we can easily add it to the infobox, but I don't think a bot can add it to all the existing articles. I think we tried that for the addition of |designation= and |class= with no success. WP:AS could add it to relevant cases slowly, though. --Eyrezer (talk) 07:40, October 3, 2012 (UTC)