Portugese?
Oh, come on now, you can't be serious...L. Neil Smith was just using the man-o'-war as a comparison to help the reader understand what the Oswaft looked like. He didn't actually mean they existed in the SW galaxy. Thanos6 04:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- The scary thing is, they are serious. The precedent to keep this type of hyperinclusionist rubbish has been set, so I fear VFDing it would be a waste of time. That said, I removed the BTS reference to Portugal, for being overly speculative and absurd.--Valin Kenobi 06:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- You say hyperinclusionist, I say comprehensive. And there's no reason not to be. Unfortunately, Smith made the comparison in-universe. So they exsist in Star Wars. .... 06:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Was it in IU dialogue or in the omniscient narration/authorial voice? If it's the latter, we could make a good case against including it.--Valin Kenobi 06:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Basically the assumption is with all SW lit (With a few rare exceptions), that the "narration" is in universe, otherwise we could not be so intimate in reading the characters thoughts. Real non-fiction works do not delve into the thoughts of the parties involved. So all the narration is, at least to my knowledge, semi-IU. .... 08:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's patent nonsense, and you know it. There's a line between inclusionism and absurdity, and this article is at least 12 parsecs over that line. Red XIV 06:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- So if an author writes "like a bat out of hell," I get to write entries for bats and hell? Enochf 08:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- The way Wookieepedia is going now, probably so. Which is exactly the problem. 71.203.209.0 09:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Damn right you do, but only if someone else doesn't beat you to it. We already have Bat and Hell. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 12:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Cool! Portugal is canonical! KEJ 09:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Great, why don't we just create that? (sigh) I almost just did. "Portugal is the home of Portuguese men-o'-war. They speak a language called Portuguese. Just kill me now." I think I'm beginning to understand why Wookieepedians occasionally go mad. Gonna take a break now and get some work done. Enochf 21:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- We have articles on American Graffiti, and you people are worrying about Portugal? Don't you know that that's where Hoojibs come from? And besides, Wookieepedia is the very definition of hyperinclusionist fanwankery. .... 09:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- To those who think this is absurd, I agree, and I would vote to delete if it was put up for VfD. But I'd say the odds are a bit less than 50/50 that it would succeed. Of course, if you're Corellian, what need have you for odds? ;) - JMAS 13:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- All it takes is for Abel Peña to retcon them into being from the Portuga system in the Lusitanic solar system in the Ibery sector. KEJ 21:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- To those who think this is absurd, I agree, and I would vote to delete if it was put up for VfD. But I'd say the odds are a bit less than 50/50 that it would succeed. Of course, if you're Corellian, what need have you for odds? ;) - JMAS 13:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- So if an author writes "like a bat out of hell," I get to write entries for bats and hell? Enochf 08:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- That's patent nonsense, and you know it. There's a line between inclusionism and absurdity, and this article is at least 12 parsecs over that line. Red XIV 06:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Basically the assumption is with all SW lit (With a few rare exceptions), that the "narration" is in universe, otherwise we could not be so intimate in reading the characters thoughts. Real non-fiction works do not delve into the thoughts of the parties involved. So all the narration is, at least to my knowledge, semi-IU. .... 08:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Was it in IU dialogue or in the omniscient narration/authorial voice? If it's the latter, we could make a good case against including it.--Valin Kenobi 06:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- You say hyperinclusionist, I say comprehensive. And there's no reason not to be. Unfortunately, Smith made the comparison in-universe. So they exsist in Star Wars. .... 06:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- To the last posters on the VFD, yes, I did read jSarek's posts, and they did not contain anything but personal opinions and arbitrary rules for deciding OOU material. Everything an author writes in a book, is the author's words, so seperating what he/she writes from actual IU material is going to be completely subjective, unless he/she actually states in the book that's the mentioning is OOU. VT-16 09:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- "people in the GFFA would not call them "horses" at all" Yes, they do Thank you for COMPLETELY missing my point. I never claimed there were no horses in SW, and in fact I referenced them several times. But you seem to have not paid attention to anything I wrote. What I meant was that all words in SW are translated from Basic into English, otherwise we would not be able to understand any of it. Most names seem to just be transliterated right over (i.e., bantha, ronto, etc.) but since some of them are exactly the same as Earth creatures (duck, horse, etc.) the names are translated instead of transliterated. See?--Valin Kenobi 14:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Funny, because Basic's alphabet is written as English, only with made-up letters. VT-16 15:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- As for your other points, well, you are just plain wrong. You say "personal opinions and arbitrary rules", I say "logic and common sense". "unless he/she actually states in the book that's the mentioning is OOU" It's already clearly spelled out! What do you want Smith to say--"dear Earthling reading the Star Wars Lando Calrissian trilogy, the Oswaft looks like a Portuguese man-o'-war"?--Valin Kenobi 14:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I would like the author to do that, so there is no mistake. There is a difference between referencing a word and referencing a word by saying it only exists in real life. That's what I've been trying to say throughout the entire debate. VT-16 15:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, hate to break it to you, but storytellers don't spell everything out neatly like that. You say you don't want personal opinions or arbitrary rules, but ANY canon decision is based on personal opinion, and my suggestions are far from arbitrary. And we need to include some degree of common sense in our decisions about what's in and what's out of universe; otherwise, we'll be including you as an article, because you play an important role in Jar Jar's Coloring Book. jSarek 22:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, there is a difference. The difference is usually blatantly obvious, and it is in this case. L. Neil Smith was clearly making an out of universe comparison, not defining a creature as canon in the Star Wars universe. Red XIV 20:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- An alien observer in a different place and time would have pointed out his resemblance to an enormous manta ray-broad and streamlined, powerfully winged, and somehow pleasingly sinister. His sleek dorsal surface was domed high with muscle. Others would have been reminded of the Portuguese man-o'-war, seeing the spectacular ribbons hanging from his ventral side, marveling at the perfect glassy transparency of his body with its hints and flashes of inner color."
- Yes, I would like the author to do that, so there is no mistake. There is a difference between referencing a word and referencing a word by saying it only exists in real life. That's what I've been trying to say throughout the entire debate. VT-16 15:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- "people in the GFFA would not call them "horses" at all" Yes, they do Thank you for COMPLETELY missing my point. I never claimed there were no horses in SW, and in fact I referenced them several times. But you seem to have not paid attention to anything I wrote. What I meant was that all words in SW are translated from Basic into English, otherwise we would not be able to understand any of it. Most names seem to just be transliterated right over (i.e., bantha, ronto, etc.) but since some of them are exactly the same as Earth creatures (duck, horse, etc.) the names are translated instead of transliterated. See?--Valin Kenobi 14:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. Alien Observer? Zakor1138 04:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- This particular talk page has brought a smile to my face. --School of Thrawn 101 07:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think Silly Dan's comment on the VFD discussion page said it best, this is a perfect storm of Earth animal, earth place, and the quote, "An observer from a different time and place would..." Obviously, the Author, who was writing for us here on earth, was describing it in a way we'd understand. This was clearly ment to be an OOU description within a cannon text. Quite frankly, unless a character interacted with an animal or said it's name in quoted text, I don't think you can determine if things are IU or OOU. A good writer will keep narration from a certain perspective. This usually means an IU perspective. But we all know that some writers (especially of early Star Wars tales) were not that good. This is an example of Omniscient Narration. From the narration perspective, the knowledge of all animals in all universes (ours and Star Wars) are up for grabs, which explains why the Man-o-war makes an appearance in a description of an non-humanoid alien. Obviously, if the book was a movie, there would be no discussion, but the Wookieepedia article would have a behind the scenes that say, "Looks like a cross between a manta and a manowar." This is a really stupid article. Who really cares either way. IthinkIwannaLeia 05:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I would guess that everyone who got involved with the VFD cared, one way or the other. jSarek 09:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think Silly Dan's comment on the VFD discussion page said it best, this is a perfect storm of Earth animal, earth place, and the quote, "An observer from a different time and place would..." Obviously, the Author, who was writing for us here on earth, was describing it in a way we'd understand. This was clearly ment to be an OOU description within a cannon text. Quite frankly, unless a character interacted with an animal or said it's name in quoted text, I don't think you can determine if things are IU or OOU. A good writer will keep narration from a certain perspective. This usually means an IU perspective. But we all know that some writers (especially of early Star Wars tales) were not that good. This is an example of Omniscient Narration. From the narration perspective, the knowledge of all animals in all universes (ours and Star Wars) are up for grabs, which explains why the Man-o-war makes an appearance in a description of an non-humanoid alien. Obviously, if the book was a movie, there would be no discussion, but the Wookieepedia article would have a behind the scenes that say, "Looks like a cross between a manta and a manowar." This is a really stupid article. Who really cares either way. IthinkIwannaLeia 05:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Portugal
What the hell is portugal in star wars neway? thats an earth place.