Forum:SH Archive/Request for comments: Apparently human characters

Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/Request for comments: Apparently human characters

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. Graestan(Talk) 00:01, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Humans are the dominant species in the galaxy. We all know this. And if a character looks human, and isn't stated to be otherwise, then he's probably human. We all know this too. However, an encyclopedia shouldn't make this assumption.

A few recent discussions on the matter have brought to my attention the need for a concrete policy on this.

However, I haven't the foggiest idea what's the best way to handle it. Do we exclude the discussion of species entirely? Do we say human with a footnote? Label them "apparently human"? "Humanoid"?

We need some definitive way to handle the uncertainty. What's everyone's take on this? Darth Culator (Talk) 01:08, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I think we should exercise some common sense for a change and call things like we see them until otherwise stated to be something else.—Tommy 9281 Mechnochair-NEGWT (Mechno-chair) 01:09, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
    • Problem is, there are some species that look almost exactly like humans. If its not stated anywhere at all that they're a human, I think we should just put "humanoid". IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 01:14, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
  • The only reasonable assumption is Near-Humanness (or, alternatively, humanoid), as yes, there are too many "slightly warped" Human species to assume that a Human-like individual is a Human and not a subspecies of it. CC7567 (talk) 01:16, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd take one of three options probably: Either completely exclude discussion, assume that they are, or create footnotes. If we're going to be this picky about assumptions, then why should we say that they are humanoid? Calling people humanoid in itself is also an assumption: we are comparing them to Humans and then making a judgement about whether they are similar. The term isn't well defined in canon. Taking this assumption thing a step further, do we stop assuming the species of distinctive looking aliens (eg Akanians or Rodians), for the simple reason that they could just be a similar or offshoot species? For me, the "apparently Human" and "humanoid" ideas don't work for me. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 04:04, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
  • I believe that if the charatcer does not possess distinctive non-Human features, it's safe to call him a Human. MauserComlink 06:07, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think we should assume they are Human without it being stated in canon as there are far too many near-Human species. For all we know they could be a Reussi, it's speculation to assume they are Human. Grunny (Talk) 06:14, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with Grunny. We should never assume someone to be human unless it's clearly stated so or if we know they're the offspring of two humans. I can't tell you how many times I've searched through a character's sources list for any mention of their species after someone adds "human" to the infobox, and not being able to find a single thing that mentions them as human. Going by images alone doesn't cut it. How do you know they aren't hiding tentacles or something under their clothes? (Crude example) With other species it's fine since most of them are distinct, but with humans there are just way too many similar species to just guess. Xicer9Atgar(Combadge) 06:51, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
  • Also per Grunny. Since there are plenty of species that look almost identical to Humans, if the source doesn't say "Human" then neither can we—after all, we do have a no speculation policy here. So what we say, then, is "Humanoid," because Humanoid, by definition, is a species that is similar in form to Humans. Therefore, if the character looks at all like it might be Human, then it has to be Humanoid. Jonjedigrandmaster (Jedi Beacon) 14:44, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
  • Per Soresu and Mauser here. If we're going to go this far with this assumption stuff, then how do we know for sure that the character is humanoid? Maybe it's some shapeshifting blob who just assumed humanoid appearance (not that I recall any in the SW universe, but it is a possibility). I believe that we should not complicate matters more than they are. If the character looks like Human, it is a safe bet that the writer/director/artist/whatever intended him to be a Human. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 20:04, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
  • If we go down this path, then how do we know anything's what it is? What can we really be certain of? Maybe that's not an X-wing -- maybe it's a modified Headhunter. How do we know that Super Star Destroyer Darth Vader's walking around on is Executor? I mean, maybe he transferred to Whelm briefly for some reason. How do we know that's a real landspeeder? It could be a hologram! Let's not get carried away with this. It would be one thing if we only saw a bit of a face, and we couldn't necessarily tell if, say, they were a Zabrak or just a darker-skinned human, because we didn't see the top of their head. But if you can see enough to tell it looks like a human, and nobody's noted that it isn't a human (which they pretty much always do if it's not meant to be one), then let's not try to think ourselves into guessing-game knots. And pretty much any "near-human" that's visually indistinguishable from humans is actually a human anyway. They're just subsets. (Hapans: Being too pretty means you're not just plain human anymore!) If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it's a duck, until you've got some actual reason to think it's not. Havac 04:33, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • I also want to add that per WP:ATT we prohibit original research, but not the common sense. "Editors may make straightforward... logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source." Occam's Razor, anyone? MauserComlink 04:39, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • Completely per Tommy, Mauser, QGJ, and Havac. Honestly, common sense is rare, and this is one of the few instances where an assumption won't damage the credibility of the wiki. I wouldn't even really call it an assumption, because, as Havac said, "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it's a duck, until you've got some actual reason to think it's not." We excersise this kind of common sense on a regular basis when referring to individuals as "he" or "she" without being given explicit indications of their sex. But lets make this perfectly clear: calling an individual Near-Human to avoid assumptions is just as bad as calling them Human, as Near-Human excludes the possibility of the individual being human. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 04:48, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
    • Which is why I suggested "humanoid": because Humans fall into that category. However, I don't feel too strongly about this, both sides have good points. Jonjedigrandmaster (Jedi Beacon) 16:51, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, the vote count seems to be at 6-5, which is too close to call. Time to put this to a CT maybe? SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 10:26, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • Personally, I feel that the duck test is sufficient to call someone Human in the absence of evidence to the contrary. In other words, per Havac. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 16:02, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • I have to go with Havac on this one. Xd1358 Talk 16:53, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • Ditto, per Havac. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 16:55, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • First, I also echo the common sense/"duck test" stance. Typically, if characters are not supposed to be human, then there is some mention, somewhere, of what their species are. Second, if this goes the other way, I object to the term "humaniod" because I've always associated it with a generic description of body shape. (e.g. Rodians, unlike Hutts, have a humanoid body). I would prefer "AppearsAppeared Human". - Esjs(Talk) 19:55, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • Per Havac. I'm not terribly fond of assumptions, but if we don't make at least some basic ones, we lose the ability to make any concrete statements in the Wook. If we can't assume a duck is a duck, then we have to remove the species from every character article where it hasn't been explicitly stated somewhere, because any of them might be a Clawdite or Shi'ido or something. jSarek 01:34, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • Per Havac. Let's not go for the stupid solution. QuentinGeorge 06:52, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • Also per Havac. Green Tentacle (Talk) 18:15, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • Per Havac. I support common sense! :P Chack Jadson (Talk) 01:10, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Per Havac. When will there be an official decision? --Darth Shohet 04:03, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Ah, I'm glad Havac and others have summed up the opinion I hold so succinctly. As someone who writes lots of alien species articles, the last thing I need is to second-guess each alien ID I make in a comic book because that could be a "near-Devaronian" or that could be an Ewok with alopecia... ~ SavageBob 05:46, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Per Havac. --Tellanroaeg 09:59, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Per Havac, unless of course the art style in, say, a Tales story is so abstract that you can't really say for sure. —Milo Fett[Comlink] 15:26, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • Per above. JangFett (Talk) 17:06, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • Per Havac. Nayayen—TALK 17:09, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • Per Havac --Loneshark1138 Koensayr (Comlink Active) 20:12, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm all for declaring them doppelgangers of George Lucas until a canonical source states they are indeed human. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:13, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Consensus?

The discussion above seems to have produced consensus to me (I count 20–6 in favor of the duck test). Is there a need to rehash this in a CT thread, or can we just start applying the duck test based on this? Since this page has been silent for almost two weeks, IMHO it's time for an administrative decision one way or the other. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 00:21, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. This went less argument-y than I expected. Someone want to write up a succinct legalese version of the duck test to make into a policy page or stick into an existing one? -- Darth Culator (Talk) 01:32, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

I'd be willing to participate in an edit hunt once the policy is written up. No promises though, the timing and/or time commitment may be problematic for me depending on when the hunt begins. --Darth Shohet 17:01, February 27, 2010 (UTC)