- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a comprehensive article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Canary
- Nominated by: ~ SavageBob 04:00, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: Tweet.
(1 GCs/4 Users/4 Total)
Support
- Thefourdotelipsis 16:15, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
Imperialles 16:17, June 3, 2010 (UTC)- SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 23:16, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
- --TK-299 (Click Here)
13:13, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
Object
Hmm, how do we know that they're birds? Thefourdotelipsis 04:28, June 3, 2010 (UTC)- I see your point, but I'd say it's a case of the duck test (canary test?). So, the same way we call someone who looks human but isn't explicitly called a Human a Human. In other words, we have no reason to believe Smith meant something other than tweety-bird canaries. ~ SavageBob 04:39, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know that the duck test is really applicable, since we don't know what a Star Wars canary looks like, and it's probably more something that falls under authorial intent, which we can't always use. I know this sounds pedantic, but... I'd probably say yeah if they were said to look like Quorsavs, but they aren't, as far as I'm aware. Thefourdotelipsis 04:49, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
- No, I understand your argument, and it's sensible. The thing is, though, I see this as falling into the "English" assumption we all make all the time. If we see a standard English word used in a source with no further context, we just assume that that word means the same thing in Star Wars as it does in the real world. We don't second-guess words like "blanket" or "window" or "heart attack"; we take them to mean what they mean in the real world (these are made-up examples, mind you, although I can dig up specific examples if folks want). In other words, barring any reason to think otherwise, canaries in Star Wars should probably just be taken to be canaries like ours. If this is beyond the scope of the CA page, though, I'll rescind the nomination, because SH or CT might be more appropriate. Tweet. ~ SavageBob 16:10, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
- No no, that's sound enough logic for me. :) Thefourdotelipsis 16:15, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
- No, I understand your argument, and it's sensible. The thing is, though, I see this as falling into the "English" assumption we all make all the time. If we see a standard English word used in a source with no further context, we just assume that that word means the same thing in Star Wars as it does in the real world. We don't second-guess words like "blanket" or "window" or "heart attack"; we take them to mean what they mean in the real world (these are made-up examples, mind you, although I can dig up specific examples if folks want). In other words, barring any reason to think otherwise, canaries in Star Wars should probably just be taken to be canaries like ours. If this is beyond the scope of the CA page, though, I'll rescind the nomination, because SH or CT might be more appropriate. Tweet. ~ SavageBob 16:10, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know that the duck test is really applicable, since we don't know what a Star Wars canary looks like, and it's probably more something that falls under authorial intent, which we can't always use. I know this sounds pedantic, but... I'd probably say yeah if they were said to look like Quorsavs, but they aren't, as far as I'm aware. Thefourdotelipsis 04:49, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
- I see your point, but I'd say it's a case of the duck test (canary test?). So, the same way we call someone who looks human but isn't explicitly called a Human a Human. In other words, we have no reason to believe Smith meant something other than tweety-bird canaries. ~ SavageBob 04:39, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
Comments