- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Jeby
- Nominated by: ~ SavageBob 17:32, October 18, 2010 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: More ..../"Design an Alien" silliness. Wonder what the state of Jeby/Hapan relations is.
(4 ACs/1 Users/5 Total)
Support
--Eyrezer 02:08, October 24, 2010 (UTC)- —Silly Dan (talk) 18:36, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:59, October 27, 2010 (UTC)- Grand Moff Tranner
(Comlink) 01:45, October 30, 2010 (UTC) - 1358 (Talk) 06:23, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
Object
What's the indication of sentience? I remember thinking they were not specified as such. --Eyrezer 18:54, October 18, 2010 (UTC)- To me, the penchant for joviality and hysterical laughing seem to indicate sentience. Coupled with a generally humanoid physiology (barring the multiple limbs and heads), I've always thought these guys were supposed to be sentient. Here's where the creature's behavior is discussed in the OS: "From time to time, some of the spots fall off its body when it laughs too hard. He uses the tentacles to suck the spots back up and put them back on his body. He also uses the tentacles to grab other objects." Granted, there's no outright declaration of sentience, but there's not one of non-sentience either. Do we need a new category or "species of undefined sentience"? ~ SavageBob 20:45, October 18, 2010 (UTC)
- If I may, what you just described sounds not very unlike the behavior of the Kowakian monkey-lizard, which is not confirmed to be fully sentient either. FWIW, the IU classification of them is that, The sentience of Kowakian monkey-lizards was a highly debated topic among the greater galactic scientific community. I would suggest not asserting outright full sentience in this instance either. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:50, October 18, 2010 (UTC)
- I'm cool with changing the article to say that the OS is ambiguous on their sentience (or lack thereof). But our infoboxes and categories have no options for ambiguity like this. The infobox is little issue; the creature and sentient infoboxes are very close to one another. But is it enough to simply state the ambiguitey in the BTS (and remove mentions of sentience from the body), or should we create a Category:Species of unidentified sentience or somesuch? ~ SavageBob 21:18, October 18, 2010 (UTC)
- I would personally be satisfied with stating the ambiguity in the BTS. Whether you want to take the effort of creating a new category is entirely up to you. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:23, October 18, 2010 (UTC)
- Done. I'm still open to the idea of a new category, but it might be best to hold off unless we have other species that should be added as well. ~ SavageBob 21:27, October 18, 2010 (UTC)
- I would personally be satisfied with stating the ambiguity in the BTS. Whether you want to take the effort of creating a new category is entirely up to you. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:23, October 18, 2010 (UTC)
- I'm cool with changing the article to say that the OS is ambiguous on their sentience (or lack thereof). But our infoboxes and categories have no options for ambiguity like this. The infobox is little issue; the creature and sentient infoboxes are very close to one another. But is it enough to simply state the ambiguitey in the BTS (and remove mentions of sentience from the body), or should we create a Category:Species of unidentified sentience or somesuch? ~ SavageBob 21:18, October 18, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, Bob. I don't think the laughter is enough -- after all, we describe hyenas as "laughing". I would suggest defaulting to the creatures category. --Eyrezer 09:57, October 19, 2010 (UTC)- I'm uncomfortable with that, as this is ambiguous (although I still think the intention was sentience, though who knows if a 7-year-old even distinguishes between dogs and people at that stage). Defaulting either way is problematic, though. I'm fine with an ambiguous category. But we are still left with whether to call it "Behavior" or "Society and culture" and whether to use the sentient or creature infobox. Our system is not set up for ambiguity! :) ~ SavageBob 15:06, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
- To clarify my above comment, in practice, what I am suggesting is that the "Behaviour" section name be used, and it be placed in the Creatures category, but the text could remain the same, including the BTS. I am not suggesting any positive assertion that Jeby are non-sentient, sentient, or otherwise. I guess I see "Species" as a broader category, with "Sentient species" as a specific subset of that. Therefore, if we are unable to place an article in the more specific category, it should default to the broader category above that. The anomaly we have here is that non-sentient species are called "Creatures," as opposed to "Species".
As for the separate matter of a category for species whose sentient is disputed IU, I know of at least two other examples, but I don't see that the Jeby would be included in that category. As for a category for species where no information is given on sentience, I think that is unnecessary. --Eyrezer 07:15, October 21, 2010 (UTC)- I think I'll move it to Category:Undefined sentience, to mirror Category: Undefined social groups and Category:Individuals of unspecified gender, both categories where the source text is ambiguous. That will quiet my misgivings. As for the rest, OK, I'll give it the minor overhaul soon. ~ SavageBob 14:49, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
- Recategorized and changed the "S/C" to "Behavior", per our discussion. I hope this is a compromise we all can live with. ~ SavageBob 21:28, October 23, 2010 (UTC)
- Sure. Although we now need to debate whether it gets included in WP:AS :P --Eyrezer 02:08, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
- Recategorized and changed the "S/C" to "Behavior", per our discussion. I hope this is a compromise we all can live with. ~ SavageBob 21:28, October 23, 2010 (UTC)
- I think I'll move it to Category:Undefined sentience, to mirror Category: Undefined social groups and Category:Individuals of unspecified gender, both categories where the source text is ambiguous. That will quiet my misgivings. As for the rest, OK, I'll give it the minor overhaul soon. ~ SavageBob 14:49, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
- To clarify my above comment, in practice, what I am suggesting is that the "Behaviour" section name be used, and it be placed in the Creatures category, but the text could remain the same, including the BTS. I am not suggesting any positive assertion that Jeby are non-sentient, sentient, or otherwise. I guess I see "Species" as a broader category, with "Sentient species" as a specific subset of that. Therefore, if we are unable to place an article in the more specific category, it should default to the broader category above that. The anomaly we have here is that non-sentient species are called "Creatures," as opposed to "Species".
- I'm uncomfortable with that, as this is ambiguous (although I still think the intention was sentience, though who knows if a 7-year-old even distinguishes between dogs and people at that stage). Defaulting either way is problematic, though. I'm fine with an ambiguous category. But we are still left with whether to call it "Behavior" or "Society and culture" and whether to use the sentient or creature infobox. Our system is not set up for ambiguity! :) ~ SavageBob 15:06, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
- If I may, what you just described sounds not very unlike the behavior of the Kowakian monkey-lizard, which is not confirmed to be fully sentient either. FWIW, the IU classification of them is that, The sentience of Kowakian monkey-lizards was a highly debated topic among the greater galactic scientific community. I would suggest not asserting outright full sentience in this instance either. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:50, October 18, 2010 (UTC)
- To me, the penchant for joviality and hysterical laughing seem to indicate sentience. Coupled with a generally humanoid physiology (barring the multiple limbs and heads), I've always thought these guys were supposed to be sentient. Here's where the creature's behavior is discussed in the OS: "From time to time, some of the spots fall off its body when it laughs too hard. He uses the tentacles to suck the spots back up and put them back on his body. He also uses the tentacles to grab other objects." Granted, there's no outright declaration of sentience, but there's not one of non-sentience either. Do we need a new category or "species of undefined sentience"? ~ SavageBob 20:45, October 18, 2010 (UTC)
Paul Rice's article says he was seven, but this article says he was nine (but was still in first grade?) Can this be clarified? —Silly Dan (talk) 03:33, October 24, 2010 (UTC)- Good catch! The OS says he was 7. I've changed the article accordingly. ~ SavageBob 03:48, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
Toprawa
Any reason the article still employs the Sentient infobox? Seems like it should use the Species infobox given its recent changes.Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:45, October 27, 2010 (UTC)- Because it's nebulous, I can't see why it matters. The information that's there would be the same either way. ~ SavageBob 05:00, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
- If the matter is ambiguous, and the species isn't confirmed to be sentient, the article shouldn't use the Sentient infobox. It's best to just resort to the general Species box for the same reason you wouldn't outright refer to the species as sentient in the article itself. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:05, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
- As above, I don't think it's fair to default to either "creature" or "sentient" if it's ambiguous. That's why I created a new category. As for the infobox, though, because the information is the same no matter which infobox is used, I don't see the point in preferring one over the other. The article will look the same either way. ~ SavageBob 05:17, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I take part of that back. "Homeworld" becomes "Planet of origin," and "Average height" becomes "Height of average adult." Either way, I can't see why it matters (and it'd probably be a good idea to sync our infoboxes on non-sentients and sentients anyway).. ~ SavageBob 05:20, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
- The point is that the species isn't confirmed to be sentient, so slipping the Sentient infobox in there is tantamount to trying to suggest it may be. The prudent course of action would to be take the ambiguous road and just assert via the infobox that it's a "species," no more, no less, according to what information canonical sources give us. The use of the Species infobox doesn't necessarily mean it's a "creature" and therefore non-sentient. It just means it avoids trying to suggest it's one or the other. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:27, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
- I would also point out that the article employs the "Non-sentient/Semi-sentient" species layout, essentially for the same reason, to remain ambiguous. To use Eyrezer's own worded reasoning, "if we are unable to place an article in the more specific category, it should default to the broader category above that." This applies to the layout and the infobox as well, which should appropriately match each other. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:51, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
- I understand the reasoning, but I guess my reservation is, still, that the end result to the reader will look the same regardless of the infobox used, barring the "homeworld"/"planet of origin" switch. But it doesn't hurt to change it either, so I have. This brings up lots of issues about the two infoboxes, too. For example, I'm not sure why the species infobox doesn't include a line for lifespan while the sentient infobox does. But that's a matter for elsewhere. At any rate, despite our disagreement here, I'm glad you took a look, and I appreciate your review, Tope. ~ SavageBob 14:58, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for making the change. FWIW, I also feel other fields should be added to the species templates. For example, I've considered whether fields for "Weight" or some kind of diet classification for carnivores, omnivores, herbivores (all canonical descriptions) should be included. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:59, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
- I understand the reasoning, but I guess my reservation is, still, that the end result to the reader will look the same regardless of the infobox used, barring the "homeworld"/"planet of origin" switch. But it doesn't hurt to change it either, so I have. This brings up lots of issues about the two infoboxes, too. For example, I'm not sure why the species infobox doesn't include a line for lifespan while the sentient infobox does. But that's a matter for elsewhere. At any rate, despite our disagreement here, I'm glad you took a look, and I appreciate your review, Tope. ~ SavageBob 14:58, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I take part of that back. "Homeworld" becomes "Planet of origin," and "Average height" becomes "Height of average adult." Either way, I can't see why it matters (and it'd probably be a good idea to sync our infoboxes on non-sentients and sentients anyway).. ~ SavageBob 05:20, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
- As above, I don't think it's fair to default to either "creature" or "sentient" if it's ambiguous. That's why I created a new category. As for the infobox, though, because the information is the same no matter which infobox is used, I don't see the point in preferring one over the other. The article will look the same either way. ~ SavageBob 05:17, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
- If the matter is ambiguous, and the species isn't confirmed to be sentient, the article shouldn't use the Sentient infobox. It's best to just resort to the general Species box for the same reason you wouldn't outright refer to the species as sentient in the article itself. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:05, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
- Because it's nebulous, I can't see why it matters. The information that's there would be the same either way. ~ SavageBob 05:00, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 06:23, October 30, 2010 (UTC)