Forum:Species definition

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091227230730/adventuretimewithfinnandjake/images/archive/b/bc/20100401212842!Wiki.png

Species
This post is with reference to the species category.

There are currently a few important points on the candidates for deletion talk page.


 * Snails: If the waving snail and giant snails can't be grouped as a category, then the purpose of species articles is pretty limited. They are clearly both snails - are the grouping characteristics enough to group such a limited species though?


 * Cats: The distinguishing characteristics Cake and Demon Cat are pretty evident, but both are "cats." The characteristics that make them a cat are so vague it seems almost silly to keep it considering they are so different.


 * Hug Wolves: This is being discussed for deletion because we have only two known members of the species - it is also a temporary affliction more than a species in some sense.


 * Nymphs: Why don't they have a species if two members is enough to define a species? They have unique traits aesthetically - and though all the information given from them is based on the two examples on show, that is also true of Hug Wolves.

Where exactly do we draw the line on similar enough to be a species, and what is deserving of a species to begin with?

Should species articles be used to show the differences in real world species?

Should species articles be used to describe the grouping characteristics, while the character article is for the character's unique traits?

Discussion
My thought is that species articles should be used to define the unique aspects of all members of a species and to list its notable members. To define what makes a species article worthy could be resolved by having multiple OK's for the species article: One could be having a "notable member," which I suggest we define in a new way, and another could be having 3 or more members of significant similarity in aesthetics.

Note: This is how I suggest we define species. Significant similarity could be "made of candy" --so long as there is one interesting and unique characteristic, I think that should work. Pardon my ignorance and feel free to suggest another definition if not. I recognize this is not how real world species work - if we were trying to make our system conform to real world species, we would either have 3 species or more than 500.

1. Currently "notable members" is basically synonymous with "members." I think we should treat this in the same way we treat quotes - if a member of a species plays only a minor role in an episode or does not have a significant degree of importance in Ooo, they are not a "notable" member. In this way a "notable member" would be the alpha hug wolf due to her importance in the episode's plot so they would get an article - Nymphs would not get an article because they aren't notable.

2. Significantly similar aesthetics is obviously a judgment call to some extent. If necessary, we could create some subsection for particularly controversial species - bear in mind they are supposed to be interesting articles that make sure to keep the members relevant to one another. I would say that "food monsters" could be a species based on the two hamburger monsters and the hot dog monster.

The logic behind this is that if a species has a "notable member," then presumably they will have notable traits as well. This is obviously not true in all cases, hence the other requirement. The second catch suggests that snails should remain as an article due to the amount of their species - we don't need Snail Lady as an article and instead it would be a subsection of the Snails article.

Hug Wolves is in my opinion the poster child reason for the separation of species and character articles. It doesn't make sense to describe all the effects of Hug Wolves on the Hug Wolf character page - this is exemplified obviously by examples where there are many members of the same species; having all the characteristics of a fire elemental on every fire elemental's page would be painfully redundant. I don't think we should