- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Comprehensive article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Unidentified giant serpent
- Nominated by: Imperators II(Talk) 10:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination comments:
- Date Archived: 05:31, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- Final word count: 194 words (0 introduction, 157 body, 37 behind the scenes)
- Word count at nomination time: 191 words (0 introduction, 154 body, 37 behind the scenes)
- WookieeProject (optional):
(3 ECs/0 Users/3 Total)
(Votes required: No additional votes required to pass, please consider reviewing another article.)
Support votes
Ayrehead02 (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)- CometSmudge (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
- Lewisr (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Objections
Comet
Sentience is infobox exclusiveCometSmudge (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)- I'm gonna argue that it's implied by the serpent exhibiting none of the traits associated with sentience; similar to how we don't always have to spell out a celestial body is "terrestrial" when that's implied by its description. Imperators II(Talk) 07:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Is it actually confirmed to be non-sentient? We usually don't assume that it's non-sentient just because we don't see it exhibiting sentient traits. It's possible it does have those traits and just didn't show them in the story. I also think this is different from the terrestrial situation because it makes more sense to imply something based on information in the article than to imply something based on a lack of information in the article. CometSmudge (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with that - the cases where something is explicitly described as "non-sentient" - there's, what, like, five instances of that across the Star Wars canon? And in the case of the rest of the hundreds upon hundreds of creatures that are depicted as just that, creatures, we have to go "oh, but we don't know that it isn't actually sentient"? No, it is much more logical and, to be honest, also more helpful to the reader to make by default the assumption that, when Star Wars wants to show or point out the lore detail that something is sentient (or semi-sentient), it does so. And the reasoning that "just because we don't see something exhibit signs of sentience (or aren't told it's sentient) doesn't mean it's non-sentient" fails Occam's razor as far as the fictional universe of Star Wars is concerned - or worse, it's speculation, because it's building conjecture that isn't presented by the story material itself. Imperators II(Talk) 21:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- We do have cases where a species appears to be clearly non-sentient but is later shown to actually be sentient, so I don't think we can default to that assumption. Sarlaccs, Dianogas, and Exogorths all seemed non-sentient but were later shown to have sentience. (It was originally from FACPOV, but the Bestiary also included that) CometSmudge (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- I mean, those are really just exceptions that prove the rule. Us assuming that organisms that appear non-sentient are non-sentient (which, tbh, to me sounds like just simple duck test) is no different than Star Wars itself doing that "assumption", which it has already done before with sarlaccs (and exogorths too), by the way. Imperators II(Talk) 16:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- I guess it's fine to duck test as non-sentient, but I do still feel that it needs to be explicitly stated in the body CometSmudge (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- Alright, noted. Imperators II(Talk) 08:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
- I guess it's fine to duck test as non-sentient, but I do still feel that it needs to be explicitly stated in the body CometSmudge (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- I mean, those are really just exceptions that prove the rule. Us assuming that organisms that appear non-sentient are non-sentient (which, tbh, to me sounds like just simple duck test) is no different than Star Wars itself doing that "assumption", which it has already done before with sarlaccs (and exogorths too), by the way. Imperators II(Talk) 16:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- We do have cases where a species appears to be clearly non-sentient but is later shown to actually be sentient, so I don't think we can default to that assumption. Sarlaccs, Dianogas, and Exogorths all seemed non-sentient but were later shown to have sentience. (It was originally from FACPOV, but the Bestiary also included that) CometSmudge (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with that - the cases where something is explicitly described as "non-sentient" - there's, what, like, five instances of that across the Star Wars canon? And in the case of the rest of the hundreds upon hundreds of creatures that are depicted as just that, creatures, we have to go "oh, but we don't know that it isn't actually sentient"? No, it is much more logical and, to be honest, also more helpful to the reader to make by default the assumption that, when Star Wars wants to show or point out the lore detail that something is sentient (or semi-sentient), it does so. And the reasoning that "just because we don't see something exhibit signs of sentience (or aren't told it's sentient) doesn't mean it's non-sentient" fails Occam's razor as far as the fictional universe of Star Wars is concerned - or worse, it's speculation, because it's building conjecture that isn't presented by the story material itself. Imperators II(Talk) 21:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Is it actually confirmed to be non-sentient? We usually don't assume that it's non-sentient just because we don't see it exhibiting sentient traits. It's possible it does have those traits and just didn't show them in the story. I also think this is different from the terrestrial situation because it makes more sense to imply something based on information in the article than to imply something based on a lack of information in the article. CometSmudge (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'm gonna argue that it's implied by the serpent exhibiting none of the traits associated with sentience; similar to how we don't always have to spell out a celestial body is "terrestrial" when that's implied by its description. Imperators II(Talk) 07:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Comprehensive article by EduCorps 05:31, 9 March 2025 (UTC)