Wookieepedia:Votes for deletion/Portuguese man-o'-war

< Wookieepedia:Votes for deletion

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.

The result of the debate was Overwhelming KEEP (14 keep, 2 keep-but-rewrite, 6 delete). Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 02:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Portuguese man-o'-war (talk - history - links - logs)

See Talk:Portuguese man-o'-war

He was large for a young adult, although there were Elders of his species twice his size and mass. 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.

Keep

  1. Just to imagine Leland scurrying about trying to retcon this. DarthMRN 14:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. WP:POINT. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 18:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. It's in a canon source. :) —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Per Jaymach. -- I need a name (Complain here) 18:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. They're simply warriors from the planet Portug ;-) --Azizlight 22:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Well, OK, but I might make "Portuguese" and "Portugal" locked redirects so you don't get carried away. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. <spins on chair> Hyperinclusionist Fanwankery! .... 06:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. If it's canon, it should stay. And worse is yet to come when I get the time to peruse my Marvel Star Wars collection ;) Evir Daal 08:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. If it's called that in the book, then of course it stays. VT-16 19:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Gonna have to say keep on this one. Sure, that it has an obvious Earthian origin is a bit weird, but so does every single word in the English language. And you know what? The same thing can be said of Basic. -- Ozzel 20:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Objection. The difference here is that unlike dog, bat, etc., this name is tied to a specific Earth location which would obviously not be known IU.--Valin Kenobi 21:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
      • So a chicken, which was named on Earth, is fine. But a Portuguese man-o'-war, which was also named on Earth, is not? Because it has the name of an Earth place in it? Better nominate the Sidi Driss Inn, then. -- Ozzel 22:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
        • It's not the geography that's a problem, it's the OOU narration. I'll leave my vote at keep, though we might want to include the relevant quote in the article somewhere. —Silly Dan (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Per above. It's mentioned, it's included. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 20:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Keep but Rewrite as OOU. See below for reasoning. jSarek 04:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    At the very least rewrite with explanation and relvant quote in BTS. —Silly Dan (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Keep -- Cato Neimoidia 17:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Keep -- "Breaking the fourth wall" and "OOU narration" are up to interpretation. Maybe it was an alien from the ancient Portugu sector, not necessarily a human from our galaxy being referred to. The relevant text would be nice for BTS though, to avoid this being VFD'ed again. Wildyoda 18:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Changed vote to keep if only the article was written in an OOU perspective, and then like England would be okay to keep making it fully aware that it was contested. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. QuentinGeorge 06:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep but rewrite as OOU

Merge

Redirect

Delete

  1. Valin Kenobi 14:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Get rid of it. - JMAS 15:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Enochf 18:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    Cull Tremayne 22:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    Delete. Quote makes it clear the comparison is not from a GFFA perspective. jSarek 21:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. I would vote keep, but "an alien observer in a different place and time" is clearly breaking the fourth wall. Havac 21:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Per fourth wall violation. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. This is nonsense. It was clearly an out-of-universe comparison by the author, to give readers an idea of what the Oswaft look like. And I don't think the comparison is really notable enough to merit the rewrite jSarek suggests. Kill it. Red XIV 06:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Chack Jadson 20:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Could someone either post the relevant text or at least give me a page number so that we can see the exact context? -- Ozzel 17:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, can we get an exact quote? It seems like the author is just comparing the two OOU. Cull Tremayne 22:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Meditate on this we will. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
      • From the quote it seems just like an OOU comparison. It's from the opening of the book. It's not Lando making the comparison. Cull Tremayne 20:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It occurs to me that, though the quote clearly shows they're not meant to be a part of the GFFA, having a page briefly discussing the fact that the the earthly Portuguese man-o'-war was compared to the Oswaft, followed by a link to the Wikipedia article on them, would probably be beneficial. jSarek 04:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

We have absolutely no reason to say that the word "Portugese" is NOT an in-universe term, regardless of its real life background. Stop saying that. VT-16 10:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Except the quote is pretty clear in establishing that "an alien observer in a different place and time" would make such an observation. No, it's not explicitly referring to the our galaxy, but given its similarity to other text establishing distance between out two places and times (e.g. "another galaxy, another time" out of the ANH novel), and the fact that Portuguese IS definitely a term geographically linked to Earthly regions, it's silly to assume the narrator is referring to an in-universe entity. jSarek 12:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    • All is see is a mention of aliens and their language including the word "Portugese". From what is written, this could mean anything in the SW universe. As long as Earth is not mentioned, nothing stands out. VT-16 14:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Can we at least agree that Earth readers are obviously who L. Neil Smith was talking about? He's from Colorado, not the Andromeda Galaxy. —Silly Dan (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Of course. But that's different from saying that the book itself says so. It doesn't say "To all you readers of this book here on Earth..." VT-16 15:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "We have absolutely no reason to say that the word "Portugese" is NOT an in-universe term, regardless of its real life background." Don't be irrational. I'm all for being comprehensive, but at some point, common sense has to come into play, despite what the literal letter of a source says. See also: England.--Valin Kenobi 18:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Then I demand we take out any article referencing horses, chickens, ducks, cats and dogs, because these are all Earth animals that appear in SW sources. "Common sense" tells me this is [Redacted by administration] and this matter should be cancelled. If it's in the book, it's an in-universe animal. Questioning this will only open up for questioning every single name and term that's common in English. VT-16 19:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    • That actually makes sense to me. I guess it is possible that Portugal is an IU term, though very unlikely. Cull Tremayne 21:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
      • No, not "Portugal", "Portugese". "Portugal" is not mentioned in the source and we therefore can't assume that's the IU origin word. For all we know, it could be "Portug". The only word in the book is "Portugese", and that's the only word we can allow unless the other one is mentioned as well. Like I said, the only way this would be OOU and therefore "non-canon", is if the author wrote something like "it was like the real-life animal, Portugese man-o'-war". VT-16 23:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Don't make someone write Portug into a WTS entry... .... 23:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The difference, VT-16, is that those animals are all either clearly depicted as contemporary, or mentioned by characters and thus known to those characters, telling us that they are in-universe. The comparison to the man-o'-war does neither; in fact, it explicitly draws attention to it *not* being something a character in the novel would be familiar with. jSarek 02:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
      • ""Breaking the fourth wall" and "OOU narration" are up to interpretation. Maybe it was an alien from the ancient Portugu sector, not necessarily a human from our galaxy being referred to." I've tried several times to formulate a cogent rebuttal, but in the end the English language fails me. Are we even reading the same quotation? Seriously?--Valin Kenobi 06:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Unless there's any kind of reference to humans in the real world and what they might have compared it to, there's absolutely nothing to argue with. Are we going to question every single Earth term next? That's what this will open up and I find that ridiculous. Unless it's actually stated in the book that this is out-of-universe material, there's no doubt this should stay. If he's refering to "aliens", who are we to say that it is OOU "aliens"? VT-16 15:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Your position is just silly, and I stand in awe of the semantic gymnastics you're performing in order to justify it. "Unless there's any kind of reference to humans in the real world and what they might have compared it to" "Unless it's actually stated in the book that this is out-of-universe material" Hello? Are you even fucking reading the quote Cull posted at the top? It mentions "an alien observer in a different place and time" and then makes reference to two Earth animals including one named for a specific geographic location on Earth. The OOU nature is so blindingly obvious, honest to God, I don't see how it could be spelled out any clearer.--Valin Kenobi 20:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
          • This is your only warning: Cool it with the language. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 21:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
          • All I see is a reference to aliens and two alien animals, relative to the creature in the story. We get those references all the time throughout EU publishing. Never heard similar complaints about "cat, "dog", "duck" and "horse" (all IU animals). Now, what I don't see, is a reference to the things in this quote being OOU. I certainly don't see the author talking to a real world audience. VT-16 22:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I know it's not the same, but it wouldn't be the first time that the names of places of Earth have appeared in canon. What about Seoul? Tatooine's moon, Chenini, is the exact name of a town in Tunisia, while Tatooine itself was named after the town Tataouine. What about Everest? Sure, these were intended references and aren't as clumsy as "Portuguese", but it's not as far out as it may seem. I summon thee retcon gods (Abel, Gustavo, and Peña) to create Portug! --Azizlight 21:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • True, but what we have here is a "perfect storm" of factors (real-world creature, reference to Earth location, narration which the author clearly meant to refer to readers on Earth, reference does not point to something directly in the story, etc.) which make a Portuguese man o'war almost certainly OOU. (We can't say the same for jellyfish: if only Smith had used them as a point of reference.) —Silly Dan (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
      • VT-16: Are we going to question every single Earth term next? I should hope so. Yes, every time an Earth term pops up, we should ask "Is there any reason to think that this actually exists within the Star Wars galaxy?" Fortunately, the answer is a resounding "yes" in most cases, because either the item in question actually appears in the story, or is talked about in-universe by a Star Wars character. In this case though, the omniscient narrator (who, by his omniscience, must know about our world too) is the only one to mention it, and in the process draws attention to the fact that the characters in *that* place and time wouldn't know to make that comparison. That's good enough for me to say it's OOU. jSarek 10:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, but this is pure guesswork on your part. Because the word might happen to be a real-life name here on Earth (like the above mentioned Everest) it's automatically assumed to be OOU? That's a silly arbitrary argument. VT-16 10:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Apples and oranges. Everest and the other examples above are, again, all things that either appear in the story or are mentioned by in universe characters, or are *specifically* tied by narration to in-universe things or phenomena. They don't compare with the man-o'-war, and few things will, because modern authors (and their editors) are far more careful about not including comparisons to real-world things in their narration. jSarek 10:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
          • VT, please read jSarek's posts. We're not automatically assuming anything. I say again, all the other examples everyone has listed (dog, chicken, etc.) are explicitly seen in-universe or were mentioned by the characters. Horses were seen on screen. Chickens appeared on screen. Dogs were mentioned in dialogue several times. Ducks were seen onscreen and mentioned in dialogue. Whereas the PMOW is mentioned only in narration that goes out of its way to mention that the characters would NOT know of it. Would you at least admit that L. Neil Smith's original intent was to make an outside-the-fourth-wall comparison for the reader, regardless of whatever inclusionist retcon we're trying to shoehorn it into after the fact?--Valin Kenobi 14:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, I just thought of another way to look at it. We all agree that SW people talk about horses, chickens, dogs, and ducks. But they don't talk about Andalusian horses, Rhode Island Red chickens, Scottish terriers, and Muscovy ducks. See the difference? (Although when you think about it, people in the GFFA would not call them "horses" at all--they'd have their own "alien" word for the animal, and the authors are merely using the Earth-familiar word for our benefit. But this kind of meta analysis will just give you a headache if you try to follow it too far.)--Valin Kenobi 14:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, in this case, "Portuguese" in "Portuguese man-o'-war" isn't an identifier in the same manner. There are no other "man-o'-war" animals in existence, and any usage of lacking the "Portuguese" instead refers to a kind of warship. jSarek 21:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • people in the GFFA would not call them "horses" at all
Yes, they do: [1]. I've also seen cats, dogs, and ducks mentioned as IU animals. And in this case, Portugese man-o-war is also an animal reference. There is no way of seperating it from all the other references, other than people's personal opinions. That's why I'm calling for this silly vote to be ended. If no-one can provide an actual statement from the book that says it's an OOU reference, have this vote called off! VT-16 22:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Have you read a word I've said? There are very clear ways of separating it from the other references, which I'm not going to repeat for you yet again. jSarek 01:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.