- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Comprehensive article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Drayberian hawk/Legends
- Nominated by: Imperators II(Talk) 10:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Nomination comments:
- Date Archived: 02:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Final word count: 184 words (0 introduction, 123 body, 61 behind the scenes)
- WookieeProject (optional): WP:KOTOR, WP:VG
(3 ECs/0 Users/3 Total)
(Votes required: No additional votes required to pass, please consider reviewing another article.)
Support
Fan26 (Talk) 18:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)-
Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC) 
Lewisr (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Object
Anil
If that quote is all we have about the creature, I'm not sure if we should disregard the possibility of the hawk being, say, semi-sentient. I believe many similar creature status articles don't make that assumption either.- Tbh I think this whole situation stinks and we should rebuild it from the ground up. :P Treating organisms that share the names of otherwise generally non-sentient animal groups but that aren't described as being semi-sentient or sentient as "unspecified" by default seems less rational to me than treating them as non-sentient by default and only making exceptions for explicitly semi-sentient organisms. Lando watched a Toka kill and cook a lizard on Rafa V, but for some reason we really should be going, "Oh, but we don't know, maybe that lizard was semi-sentient"? :P (Status article precedent is also understably all over the place actually. :P) Imperators II(Talk) 09:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- I raised the objection because I do think recent SAs have been pretty consistent about that, but I definitely agree we should reconsider the current precedent. Even the creature categories might work better as subcats of Category:Non-sentient species, imo. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Well, either way I've changed it to unspecified. Imperators II(Talk) 22:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- I raised the objection because I do think recent SAs have been pretty consistent about that, but I definitely agree we should reconsider the current precedent. Even the creature categories might work better as subcats of Category:Non-sentient species, imo.
- Tbh I think this whole situation stinks and we should rebuild it from the ground up. :P Treating organisms that share the names of otherwise generally non-sentient animal groups but that aren't described as being semi-sentient or sentient as "unspecified" by default seems less rational to me than treating them as non-sentient by default and only making exceptions for explicitly semi-sentient organisms. Lando watched a Toka kill and cook a lizard on Rafa V, but for some reason we really should be going, "Oh, but we don't know, maybe that lizard was semi-sentient"? :P (Status article precedent is also understably all over the place actually. :P) Imperators II(Talk) 09:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Could you make a slight tweak to the Esstran sector reference? Noting that it's "based on corresponding data for Horuset system" feels a bit off when the name Horuset is not present in that source at all (as far as I can see). Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not really. Firstly, this isn't the only case where (outside of grammatically complete sentences, of course) we link directly using the subject's article's title instead of pipelinking it - an example is the affiliation field of infoboxes, we don't restrict ourselves to the exact terminology used by the sources in question. And secondly and even more relevantly, the terminology used in the Appendix of The Essential Atlas and the Online Companion generally doesn't override previously used names. So we don't even actually know whether "Korriban system" (or "Moraband system", depending on which year's version of the Online Companion you're looking at) is a canonical name to begin with (here's an example of a principle related to this in action). Imperators II(Talk) 09:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't think we should go for a "Korriban/Moraband system" either, but I feel like this case is different than, say, using the full name of "Alliance to Restore the Republic" when the sources use a more colloquial terminology like "the Rebellion." It's just that, based on only the information present in the article, a reader cannot understand what the "data for Horuset system" in the Online Companion exactly is without knowing that's the system housing Korriban. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- So what are you suggesting I do here? Imperators II(Talk) 22:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- You can source it to something that directly places Korriban in that sector, such as Star Wars: Force and Destiny Core Rulebook, instead? Or if you still prefer using the Companion, something like "the [[Horuset system|star system]] containing [[Korriban]]" similar to the Avenel example should clarify what we are looking at on that map, I think. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- The latter seems too weird to me for such a relatively straightforward case (I don't really see it as that different from, say, a character's article talking about the "Separatist Alliance" or the "Separatists" but using "Confederacy of the Independent Systems" in the infobox - if the reader is curious about the terminology used, they can simply follow the link to learn more!), so I've went with the FaD rulebook, thanks for that. Imperators II(Talk) 09:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- You can source it to something that directly places Korriban in that sector, such as Star Wars: Force and Destiny Core Rulebook, instead? Or if you still prefer using the Companion, something like "the [[Horuset system|star system]] containing [[Korriban]]" similar to the Avenel example should clarify what we are looking at on that map, I think.
- So what are you suggesting I do here? Imperators II(Talk) 22:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't think we should go for a "Korriban/Moraband system" either, but I feel like this case is different than, say, using the full name of "Alliance to Restore the Republic" when the sources use a more colloquial terminology like "the Rebellion." It's just that, based on only the information present in the article, a reader cannot understand what the "data for Horuset system" in the Online Companion exactly is without knowing that's the system housing Korriban.
- Not really. Firstly, this isn't the only case where (outside of grammatically complete sentences, of course) we link directly using the subject's article's title instead of pipelinking it - an example is the affiliation field of infoboxes, we don't restrict ourselves to the exact terminology used by the sources in question. And secondly and even more relevantly, the terminology used in the Appendix of The Essential Atlas and the Online Companion generally doesn't override previously used names. So we don't even actually know whether "Korriban system" (or "Moraband system", depending on which year's version of the Online Companion you're looking at) is a canonical name to begin with (here's an example of a principle related to this in action). Imperators II(Talk) 09:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Comprehensive article by EduCorps 02:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)