Forum:CT:Species and subspecies

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:12, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

---

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 Bith (which have the Y'bith 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 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.

• NB: Whatever we choose, it will not apply to characters who belong to the "baseline" version of a species in cases where that baseline has no special name beyond the name of the species itself. E.g., baseline Arkanians are simply called "Arkanian," so Arkoh Adasca's infobox would include "|species=Arkanian" and no subspecies identification.

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.

1. Per Cav, this is the most accurate way to do things. It's not easy or smooth to implement, but it's the most accurate option. ~Savage 21:23, October 8, 2012 (UTC)
2. Per the discussion, this would be a better way to do it. I'll tweak infoboxes for the articles I maintain, so that should help cut down on a chunk of work, and I'll be tweaking infoboxes for whatever I come across during my nightly editing. Either way, things will get done. Trak Nar ^{Ramble on} 03:16, October 12, 2012 (UTC)
3. It's two bits of information, so I don't see a world-shattering problem with having it split into two fields. Just as long as it's not the bullet. This'll still look OK, represent the information correctly, and pretty much satisfy everybody's individual concerns. NaruHina ^Talk 04:09, October 12, 2012 (UTC)
4. Eh, this works as well. Per Naru, I guess. —MJ— ^Holocomm Friday, October 12, 2012, 21:42 UTC

Option B

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

#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 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^{(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 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)
   • 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 17:20, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
     • Thanks, by the way...Good work here. Winterz (talk) 17:27, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
       • 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^{(Squadron channel)} 17:42, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

   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 17:50, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

   I overlooked this option when setting up the CT, but I think I prefer it as more compact while not sacrificing any information. ~Savage 18:20, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

   Per Naru. Putting both on one line looks better, avoids the issue of adding a new field to the infobox, and keeps it accurate. —MJ— _Comlink Tuesday, October 2, 2012, 18:24 UTC

2. Per Naru and Savage. --LelalMekha (talk) 21:42, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
3. Agreed. Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 21:58, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
4. I like this option best. Educates people as to the existance of subspecies status. --Eyrezer (talk) 07:42, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

   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)

5. Seems the most practical. MasterFred^(Whatever) 18:41, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Sorry, but I find Option D to be wholly inaccurate. If a character is listed, as in your example, as a Saurin - a species with a separate homeworld - listing them prominently as a Trandoshan is incorrect, even by adding a subspecies qualifier into the mix. It works fine for subspecies that share a basic culture/homeworld such as Arkanians and Gands, but not in this case. Reversing the notation may work with Saurin (Trandoshan subspecies) but not the way you have it currently since you are misrepresenting the species. If a source says Saurin as the species, it must be the primary species in the infobox, not Trandoshan. - Cavalier One^{(Squadron channel)} 11:37, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think any source has ever called the Saurin a species in their own right, only a subspecies. At any rate, "subspecies" is a biological classification, not a cultural one, so this shouldn't be an issue. Not trying to be difficult, but I don't see the issue. ~Savage 11:39, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
  • Then show me a source identifying Hrchek Kal Fas as a Trandoshan over a Saurin. If he's identified as a Saurin, then Saurin should take prominence over Trandoshan regardless of species/subspecies in a character infobox. - Cavalier One^{(Squadron channel)} 11:46, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
    • Also, The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia: Saurin - A reptilian species from the planet Durkteel. Volume III, page 128. - Cavalier One^{(Squadron channel)} 12:19, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I just saw that. Mind blown! I think had the CSWE still identified them as a subspecies (like previous sources did) I'd still disagree, but since CSWE seems to have changed their classification, I've changed the examples used and removed mentions of Trandoshans/Saurin from this CT. Sorry for the confusion; other sources do call them a subspecies, so I'm glad to know that's been changed! ~Savage 12:35, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
      • Aaaand... For what it's worth, The Essential Atlas, p. 157, has changed them back to a subspecies of Trandoshans; "Durkteel is home to the Saurins, a subspecies of their neighbors, the Trandoshans." So I guess I'm back to disagreeing with you, Cav. ;) ~Savage 12:42, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
        • And again, show me a source that lists Hrchek Kal Fas as a Trandoshan. This is for character infobox not for the species. If canon calls him a Saurin, this should take precedence over a being identified by their parent species first. - Cavalier One^{(Squadron channel)} 12:52, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
          • I think I get your argument: sources tend to throw the word "Saurin" around like it's a species identification. But I don't think being called by one's subspecies in a source negates having a parent species. E.g., the fact that sources say "Hrcheck Kal Fas was a Saurin droid trader" and the like is simply a case of them using a smaller level of identification, the same way Han Solo being called a Corellian doesn't negate the fact that he's a Human. More broadly speaking, the problem is that our character infoboxes include a parameter for "species" only (not subspecies). Thus, putting "Saurin" in that field is factually incorrect, as (since Atlas at least) Saurin is not a species name, it's a subspecies name. ~Savage 13:11, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
            • No, putting Trandoshan as the prominent species in the infobox is factually incorrect. If Fas is always refered to as a Saurin - a subspecies/species/race/whatever - that has a distinctive homeworld separate from its parent species, then Saurin must take precedence as the identifier. This subspecies idea is fine for Arkanians, Gand, Bith, Aqualish, etc, since the subspecies exist on the same homeworld, and all are still considered to be members of the same species regardless of subspecies. But the Saurin are removed from the Trandoshans so much that Saurin members refer to themselves as Saurins - and that is the only identifier that should matter. And the Human/Corellian thing has no bearing on this as you and I both know that Corellian/Alderaanian/Ralltiiri only denotes homeworld, no distinct genetic differences or the subspecies of a single species. Biologically, Corellians and Alderaanians are not Human subspecies. - Cavalier One^{(Squadron channel)} 20:13, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
              • I think we seem to be at loggerheads as to what "subspecies" means. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be arguing that it should be understood as a cultural concept, in that a Trandoshan and a Saurin have different homeworlds and cultures. I am arguing that it's a biological concept, in that, according to the scientific definition of what a subspecies is, a Trandoshan and a Saurin would be able to breed and bear fertile offspring. If this is indeed our source of disagreement, we may just have to agree to disagree, since all definitions I know of subspecies make it a biological identifier, not a cultural one. If that's the case, Saurins (per the Atlas) are a subspecies of Trandoshans and are, therefore, biologically Trandoshans by species. Our infobox has only a place to list species (not subspecies), hence the need to list Trandoshan there. Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding your argument, though. ~Savage 03:15, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
                • No, I'm not disputing the definition of subspecies. That is not the issue here. The issue is that it appears you want to, in at least the case of the Saurin, add misleading information to the infobox of character articles. The three known Saurins are identified solely as Saurin. Not Trandoshans. Lets put it this way - what will the first sentence of the intro in such articles be? Will it be Hrcheck Kal Fas was a male Saurin droid trader or Hrcheck Kal Fas was a male Trandoshan droid trader? Will categories list them as Saurin or Trandoshan? Because if its the latter options, then that is false information as the character - and this is the key concept here - has never been identified as Trandoshan. The Saurin have been identified as a Trandoshan subspecies, but the characters have never had the appellation, being consistently listed as "Saurin". The same goes for the infobox. Prominently listing Trandoshan over Saurin is misleading. Mentioning in the article that the Saurin are a Trandoshan subspecies is fine. Even in the infobox is fine - as long as it doesn't take precedence over the actual identifier used for the characters. Trandoshan should not have the prominence when the actual source identifying the characters says Saurin and does not mention the word Trandoshan. Look, I get what you're trying to do, improving the accuracy of the articles and I understand the passion you have for species. I appreciate it. And this CT would probably be accurate in 99% of the cases. But not this one example, and possibly others that haven't come to light yet. And, to be honest, if you had not used Saurin as an example, I would probably have overlooked it entirely. Hard and fast rules are inherently restrictive (how much trouble do we have with the article naming policy?), and exceptions should be taken into account. This is one area I feel that applying a hard ruling will result in misleading information being applied to at least three character articles, which I realise is a fractionally small amount. I'm not against the spirit of the CT, and would like to see a compromise hammered out if possible to account for the 1% of cases that, if forced to abide by this CT as currently worded without an exception clause for at least the Saurin, would prominently list misleading information. Maybe even Option A would be the best way to go and add the subspecies field because at least then the information would be on an equal footing with each other, not having Saurin after Trandoshan. - Cavalier One^{(Squadron channel)} 09:09, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
                  • Yeah, I think that's our fundamental disagreement: In my view, calling the Kal Fases Trandoshans is more accurate (noting, of course, that they are Saurins as well) since "species" is what the infobox says. My point above about Han being called a Corellian wasn't intended to equate his culture with his species, but rather to suggest that just because someone gets called by a more specific category that applies to them, it doesn't negate the higher-level category. By that logic, the fact that Hrchek Kal Fas is everywhere called a "Saurin droid trader" is by no means an indication that she is not a Trandoshan. Indeed, by the words of the Atlas, she is. In my mind, there'd be no reason to add her to Category:Trandoshans as long as Category:Saurin is already a subcategory of it. And the first sentence of the lead would still be able to say, "Hrcheck Kal Fas was a Saurin droid trader who..." in my opinion. By virtue of being in the infobox, the word "Trandoshan" would have to be mentioned somewhere in the article, but I don't see why it would have to be in the lead or even the bio. But I get your argument, I really do. We just seem fundamentally split on it. That said, I'd be perfectly happy with adding a "subspecies" field to all character infoboxes, and I'd even switch my vote to that if you think it's a reasonable compromise. Let me know if you think it's a good way to proceed! ~Savage 12:07, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
                  • @Cav, would it look good for you if the Option D was applied using both Trandoshan and Saurin with the adequate references? For example, "Species: Trandoshan [Ref:Source that mentions Saurin being a subspecies of Trandoshan] (Saurin [Normal Ref])" and in the development, "X was a male Saurin, a Trandoshan subspecies(...)"? I believe that's the whole point of Option D, at least that's how I see it. It would mention both the conflicting sources (X is a Saurin & Saurin is a Trandoshan), in a way, clarifying them. Winterz (talk) 13:10, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

[Reset indent]Well, both would need to be accurately referenced in any case, so that's not the issue. The issue is that Trandoshan should not, and cannot, take preference over the canon identifier of the character, which is "Saurin" in released sources. In Option D, Trandoshan would be first, with Saurin relegated to a secondary status in brackets. This is unacceptable since the characters are never referred to as Trandoshans. The subspecies is, but the characters never are. While the addition of a subspecies field would place Trandoshan above Saurin, at least it would be clearly marked as such, and Saurin would enjoy equal footing with the parent species. - Cavalier One^{(Squadron channel)} 21:14, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

• I've changed my vote to Option A. Our infoboxes say species, not subspecies, so by our own logic, the Saurin characters would have to list their Trandoshan-ness somehow in my opinion. This is the only option that seems to allow that to happen in both a biologically and culturally sensitive manner (i.e., it's a good compromise. :) ) ~Savage 21:23, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

I'm opening up a new line of discussion here to say that I wouldn't mind something like "|Species = Saurin (Trandoshan subspecies)". I just don't like Option D because it presents "Bith" foremost over "Y'bith." For all canonical intents and purposes, the character is first and foremost a Y'bith. The fact that he belongs to a subspecies of Bith is really an indirect and secondary factoid and should be treated as such. To present "Bith" first and "Y'bith" second has a tendency to be extremely misleading, in my opinion. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:24, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

• That's preferable to ignoring the species altogether to just say Y'bith, but I still see that as an inaccuracy, since all the infoboxes say "species". But, again, it's preferable to ignoring the species altogether. ~Savage 22:59, October 8, 2012 (UTC)
  • As long as we're clearly specifying that we're talking about a subspecies, I think the actual name of the field is just semantics. I don't think you should get so hung up on it being an inaccuracy, per se. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:42, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

This raises a question... For example, would "Breather" take precedence over "Gand" in the infobox: Breather (Gand subspecies) In my sources, Zuckuss is listed as a Gand first, and "breather" second, and thus for that article, I felt that Gand (Breather) worked. That's why I like Option D. Otherwise, should I just nix the primary species altogether and list it as simply Breather Gand? What about for Ooryl? Gand (Lungless)? Lungless (Gand subspecies)? Just plain Lungless Gand? Trak Nar ^{Ramble on} 07:21, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

• That's why I've come to prefer adding a new "Subspecies" field to the infoboxes. It's the only option that will allow for us both to be 100% accurate (since we're not cramming subspecies into the "species" field), faithful to source material (in which species isn't even mentioned for Saurin, but only including "Saurin" in infoboxes would be inaccurate), and sensitive to in-univese nomenclature (where we have canon examples of both species-subspecies and subspecies-species, e.g., "Arkanian Offshoot" and "Gorvan Horansi"). ~Savage 11:56, October 10, 2012 (UTC)
  • So, this will boil down to the same issue we had when we started adding weights to infoboxes; tackling these on a case-by-case basis. Well, nothing wrong with padding one's edit count... Trak Nar ^{Ramble on} 03:16, October 12, 2012 (UTC)
    • That's the spirit! ;P I'd support adding a "race" field too for species that have them (like Twi'leks), but we can leave that for a later date. ~Savage 17:58, October 12, 2012 (UTC)
• I've now added a trial infobox for option A so that people can see what it will look like. --Eyrezer (talk) 21:32, October 12, 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 a known baseline version and known subspecies. In some cases, we include the appearances of subspecies in the main species article (as with Arkanian), 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.

• NB: This vote only concerns species that have a "baseline" version, from which subspecies can be identified (e.g. Trandoshan and Arkanian). It does not cover species for which there is no "baseline" version (e.g., Horansi and Nikto). Those articles will continue to list all appearances and sources for the subspecies together.

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 Arkanian Offshoot would be included on the Arkanian page and not distinguished in any way, so the "Appearances" list on the Arkanian page would include:

• Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 14: Days of Fear, Part 2

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 Arkanian page might list

• Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 14: Days of Fear, Part 2 (Offshoot)

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 12:10, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
2. Per Bob. —MJ— ^{Training Room} Tuesday, October 2, 2012, 18:38 UTC
3. Personally, I like this one, as it's cleaner. On the Gand page, I have each source tagged for who appears in it, and thus it wouldn't be much of a stretch to add "Offshoot" to those appearances and sources. Trak Nar ^{Ramble on} 02:32, October 4, 2012 (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 Arkanian page might list:

Appearances

• Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back

Offshoot

• Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 14: Days of Fear, Part 2

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 Arkanian page would include no appearances of the Arkanian Offshoot 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^{(Squadron channel)} 17:42, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
3. I agree with this being the best option. It just seems unnecessary to list what are essentially extraneous and indirect appearances to the baseline subject. The subspecies articles do exist, and they're widely and clearly linked to from the baseline species article. A reader can rightfully and easily find subspecies appearance information by opening up the respective article. Let's not make this too complicated on ourselves. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:19, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
4. --Eyrezer (talk) 21:24, October 12, 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 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 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 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 18:29, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
    • Ah. Cool beans. NaruHina ^Talk 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 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)
      • I lack the technical expertise to add the subspecies field to {{Species}}. Who would be a good person to ask to help? ~Savage 11:58, October 10, 2012 (UTC)
        • Done. --Eyrezer (talk) 11:12, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

Chewbacca

• I suspect many people will not know that Chewbacca actually belongs to a Wookiee subspecies: the rwook. I presume that the decision here would also apply to Wookiees, even though we do not know the names of any other Wookiee subspecies. I have voted for Option D. If we treat the "rwooks" as the "most common" form of Wookiee, then all Chewbacca's appearances can stay on Wookiee, which seems the most sensible outcome to me. How would Option B be interpreted for Chewie? I think it would be a bad idea to have to list (Rwook) next to all of Chewie's appearances. --Eyrezer (talk) 04:26, October 13, 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, that would certainly help distinguish sources that are actually likely to have new information from those that are simply Chewie appearances. But I think that if the option to separate out subspecies appearances and sources completely wins, we would still need to list Chewie's appearances and sources with the other Wookiees until we know for certain that the Rwook are or are not the dominant subspecies. In other words, until canon tells us what the dominant subspecies is, we can't implement the separation option. ~Savage 19:14, October 13, 2012 (UTC)
    • Moreover, his appearances call him a "Wookiee" and I think that would make this similar to having a mention of "blaster." It may be a blaster pistol or a blaster rifle, but if something is called a "blaster" in a source, it still needs an Appearance note on that page. I think a (rwook) note would be unnecessary where the Wookiee species was mentioned by name, though implementing that would also involve a lot of tedium. NaruHina ^Talk 01:37, October 16, 2012 (UTC)