Forum:CT:Capitalizing "human" -- some more details

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 choice 3. - Sikon 07:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I accept that we agreed on capitalizing human because all other specie-names are capitalized, but I think we should go into some more details. I'd like to suggest three options.

1. Capitalize human everywhere; every section, out- and in-universe articles, too.
2. Capitalize human in in-universe articles but use lower case in OOU Behind the scenes.
3. Capitalize human in all instances in every section of an in-universe article, including the OOU Behind the scenes.

Currently, Wookieepedia has a mixture of #2 and #3.

Votes

Choice 1

1. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Choice 2

1. Second choice is #3. —Silly Dan _(talk) 23:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
2. For. 3 is right behind this. Fnlayson 01:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Wildyoda 22:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Choice 3

1. I say that for consistency, we should capitalize human in all instances if the article is in-universe, even in BtS. But if proper arguments are given for option #2, I would reconsider. I would discourage option #1, though. OOU articles should follow the standards of (American) English as closely as possible. - TopAce 15:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
2. For consistency's sake - \\Captain Kwenn// ^{— Ahoy!} 15:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
3. I agree, it would just be a big mess otherwise. Charlii 18:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Per comments below. Maclimes Zero ^(talk) 17:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 10:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Valin Kenobi 23:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
8. I'm not sure how big a mess it would be if we went with #2, since I imagine the word "human" doesn't pop up that much in the BTS sections. But when it does, it's probably referring to characters, and in that context it makes more sense capitalized. Then, if someone refers to (say) Ian McDiarmid as a Human, well, it looks funny, but we can deal :) Sionay 17:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Jasca Ducato _{Sith Council} ^{Sith Campaign} 09:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Sikon 15:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Currently, I am refraining from voting, as I am against the capitalization of human and galaxy. —Xwing328^(Talk) 23:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Per Xwing328, except in cases where it is a clear proper noun. I would prefer that we apply the same rules used on earth for capitalizing, well Earth, Moon, and Sun respectively. Atarumaster88 ^{(Audience Chamber)} 17:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Has a poll of canon been executed to see what the majority opinion there is?--SparqMan 17:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, and we (unfortunately) disregard canonical majority in regards to "Galaxy", "Human", and I think "Sector" as well. —Xwing328^(Talk) 18:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I was just asking what the majority leaned towards. --SparqMan 18:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
      • They're all lowercase. —Xwing328^(Talk) 04:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Hardly "all." There are plenty of sources that capitalize "Human" - the Rebel Alliance Sourcebook (p. 143), X-Wing: The Official Strategy Guide (p. 25), and the Revised Core Rulebook (p. 22) being three quick examples, all from different publishers. jSarek 06:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
          • OK, let me revise that statement. :P All of the books I've read, I believe, have them in lowercase. However, I usually read the fiction novels and not nearly as many RPG supplements/strategy guides. —Xwing328^(Talk) 17:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
            • I should note that The New Essential Guide to Alien Species leaves Human and Near-Human or Near Human uncapitalized. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• We always capitalize Rodian, Twi'lek, and even Near-Human. In the interest of consistency, human should be capitalized regarding IU articles. Maclimes Zero ^(talk) 17:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • To be fair, I think the main reason we capitalize "Near-Human" is that we're already capitalizing "Human." 8) As for the capitalization of Human, Talk:Human and Forum:CT Archive/Capitalization of Human show what I found in my sources: RPG sources seemed to be inconsistent, and fiction didn't capitalize, which I speculated was because the proofreaders and copyeditors were using the same manual of style you'd use for a novel set on Earth or a work of non-fiction. —Silly Dan _(talk) 23:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Eh, too bad I didn't vote on that one. I don't know how I passed it over. —Xwing328^(Talk) 06:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• I talked to Jaymach the other day about this...he suggested I run Whistler to capitalize human in EVERY article. Then anywhere it's changed that it shouldn't be, it can just be changed back. Thoughts? —Xwing328^(Talk) 23:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• So...the bots have already gone through nearly every article in the (Main) namespace to capitalize Human. But what do we do with nonhuman? The proper word (supposedly) is nonhuman, and we don't want nonHuman. Non-human and non-Human are apparently incorrect also, so are we content to stay with Human and nonhuman? —Xwing328^(Talk) 17:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • How about "near-human" or "super-human"? etc., which the bots have also "corrected"? KEJ 17:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.