Forum:CT:Non- and semi-sentient species sections

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Non- and semi-sentient species sections

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 was to adopt the revised guidelines. Graestan(Talk) 03:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

After some brief discussion on the IRC and seeing other articles on species I thought this should be brought up. Per the Layout Guide via the Manual of Style, species articles are subdivided the following (excerpt):

  1. Biology and appearance deals with the physical characteristics of the species. This includes descriptions of both their physical, instinctual and mental abilities, with particular emphasis on unique factors.
  2. History deals with the major events in the history of the species. This includes such events as wars, discovery by the galactic community, and other important epochs.
  3. Society and culture deals with the sociological organization of the species, including such features as language, temperament, and family and societal structures.
  4. [Species] in the galaxy provides an overview of the species involvement in the galactic community with particular emphasis on species trends and notable individuals. Depending on the available information, this section in particular may be incorporated into the earlier sections.

I would like to suggest an addendum to this outline in light of non-sentient and semi-sentient species. For obvious reasons, these species do not qualify, per the definition of sentience of having a society and culture. I suggest that this section title be changed for these other species.

Therefore, for non-sentient species, such as cannok and shyrack, I suggest "Behavior" as the title. For semi-sentient species, such as acklay or sarlacc, I suggest "Behavior and intelligence" as the title of this section.

I understand that some articles have already achieved FA or GA status. I am suggesting that this be a new standard, and these old articles can be discussed later if it is deemed that the format must change. This is more for a clarification for the purposes of bringing species articles up to FA and GA standards with consistency and with commonality. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 00:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I approve. It'd make everything really clear. 71.233.105.43 14:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I approve as well, though I'm not certain we need two different versions of the section header; either "behavior" or "behavior and intelligence" should work just fine for both kinds of creature. jSarek 23:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC) EDIT: Actually, I think the behavior section should come before the history section. It makes no sense to split up two parts of the larger question "what is the animal like?" with its historical background. jSarek 23:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree too. Most species articles are more or less like this anyway. Unit 8311 19:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with jSarek. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 06:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I would basically agree, except there's one major flaw: the semi-sentient rancor most definitely has a culture. As established in The Essential Guide to the Force, Rancors use nets and tools, have an oral tradition, and abide by an honor code. I'm not familiar with most other semi-sentient creatures/peoples, but if even a minor percentage fit the rancor example, then absolutely no way can I vote for this.Din's Fire 997 19:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I completely understand. In such a case, I believe using the sentient species template is warranted. As always, I believe that these are case-by-case situations. Semi-sentient species straddle the line enough that I think that this proposed template may not apply. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 15:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree completely, though I'm not sure removing "Society" would be best for all. For example, per the wampa article I'm working on, the wampa displays definite social characteristics that would fall under "behavior," but I think it would be more appropriate to define it as, maybe, "Social behavior (and intelligence)," if only where appropriate. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Voting

Vote to approve amendment to species articles, changing the guidelines for non-sentient and semi-sentient to the following:

  1. Biology and appearance deals with the physical characteristics of the species. This includes descriptions of both their physical, instinctual and mental abilities, with particular emphasis on unique factors.
  2. Behavior (and intelligence) deals with the behavior and organization of the species, including such features as temperament along with societal, relational, reproductive and habitual characteristics. Any discussion on potential sentience or semi-sentience should be included in this section; Addition of "and intelligence" can be used in such articles to further explain the discussion.
  3. History deals with the major events in the history of the species. This includes such events as wars, discovery by the galactic community, and other important epochs.
  4. [Species] in the galaxy provides an overview of the species involvement in the galactic community with particular emphasis on species trends and appearances. Depending on the available information, this section in particular may be incorporated into the earlier sections.

Any alterations to the descriptive text of this proposal should be discussed in the comments section above. Please note that the History section has been moved to after the Behavior section. Per the discussion above, it should be noted that this tempalte may not apply to all semi-sentient species. In those cases, a sentient species template may be more necessary.

Approve

  1. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 20:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. jSarek 01:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Graestan(Talk) 01:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support with some flexibility—for example, Din's Fire brings up a point that makes sense. Basically, I'm good with it as long as we're willing to make changes for exceptions for special cases. Hobbes(Tiger's Lair) 18:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Darth Oblivion 21:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. It always helps to have backups.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 10:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Good enough for me Enochf 01:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Of course. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Unit 8311 18:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Yessir. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. I'll go for it. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 00:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Disapprove