Forum:CT:Sentient vs Sapient

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Sentient vs Sapient


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 that the term "sentient" should generally be used instead of "sapient" in an article's text, and should always be preferred in headings. -- Ozzel 21:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Some discussion has been brought up regarding the use of the word sentient vs the word sapient. Now there are a select few sources and novels (around 30-35) that use the word sapient. However, that is far outnumbered by all the other sources and novels that use the word sentient. Some time back, someone went through and changed 500+ articles replacing the word sentient with sapient.

Since the term sentient is more established in the Star Wars universe, I propose that when using the terms in articles, the word sentient be the acknowledged IU terminology used on Wookieepedia. This applies to headings and uses of the word in the general article contents. The exception would when quoting a specific source that uses the word sapient. - JMAS 07:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This vote is for using Sentient or Sapient for headings:

Sentient species

  1. JMAS 07:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. See comments below. jSarek 07:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Hell yeah! DarthMRN 10:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Per jSarek. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 10:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Bottle of Red. Thefourdotelipsis 11:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. Imperialles 13:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. Per jSarek. Chack Jadson Talk 13:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  8. —Xwing328(Talk) 16:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  9. Per comments below: not for banning "sapient" usage, just a preference for "sentient" because of that IU. Since there is a distinction in the English language, use sapient when specifically called for in explanation/discussion/analysis, but sentient otherwise. Wildyoda 06:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  10. Per WildYoda. The word sapient should be able to be used, but sentient is the preference, especially for headers and the like. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 05:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  11. Per WildYoda. Also, if anybody starts replacing "sentient" with "sapient" out of some obvious RL-science-vendetta, that such action be taken as a bad-faith edit. Gonk (Gonk!) 00:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sapient species

Sufficiently Endowed With Mental Reasoning Capacity species

  1. Bring it on... Avlahorak of Konigsberg

Comments

  • Not only is it more established, but it's specifically the term used in contexts where the topic has significance - i.e. instead of "sapient," which comes mostly in the names of certain institutions and throwaway lines in novels, books that focus on intelligent alien species (e.g. Galaxy Guide 4: Alien Races, The New Essential Guide to Alien Species, etc.) use sentient. Indeed, not only do they use it, they've established that in-universe bureaucracies actively debate the term - see pg. xi of the NEGAS, which mentions "Each species is designated as sentient, semi-sentient, or nonsentient . . . A panel of multicultural scientists determines the designations only after a government-approved research team has conducted a field study or has made some significant finding regarding the sentience of any given species." If we want to use the term used most regularly (though not exclusively) in our sources, we should go with "sentient." If we want to use the term best suited to the in-universe academic work we pretend to be, we should STILL use "sentient." If we want to use the most accurate real-world term, we should use "sapient" . . . but when have we ever done that? jSarek 07:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't support us practically banning the use of sapient in an IU article's text, but I am, at the least, for changing the headings. —Xwing328(Talk) 16:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    • No, now that some sources have been provided demonstrating that sapient is indeed used in universe, though not commonly, it should be fine for use in text. jSarek 03:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Any particular reason for the nowiki thing with Sentient and Sapient section labels? It does stand out in an odd way.. -Fnlayson 04:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • JMAS fixed it, thanks. I thought there have been a reason for that.. -Fnlayson 04:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • It's because this vote is for the section headers in appearance lists. —Xwing328(Talk) 14:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)