Talk:Human/Legends

Near-humans
I've redirected near-human to this article's near-human section. Anyone else think there's enough information that the article should be split? Silly Dan 14:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I think a separate article on near-humans would be a good idea. At least, we could have a list of near-human species. JustinGann 01:30, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)

OK! If no one raises objections, I'm splitting the articles. &mdash; Silly Dan 02:49, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Done, see Near-Human. &mdash; Silly Dan  02:01, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Yuuzhan Vong
I added a section on Yuuzhan Vong to this article because the Yuuzhan Vong are a humanoid species. I got this information from Vector Prime and the Star Wars Technical Commentaries entry on |Humans and Humanoids. The Yuuzhan Vong look humanoid despite having organic implants and tatoos on their bodies. 222.152.165.223

"Humanoid" and "Near-Human" are not the same thing. There is another page for humanoids.
 * They get used interchangably sometimes, though. &mdash; Silly Dan  02:32, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Alderaan?
While I do think it's best to leave the Homeworld box as just Unknown, humans were definitely not from Alderaan. Alderaan was colonized around 25,000 BBY; Galactic City on Coruscant, however, was founded before 100,000 BBY. Kuralyov 21:59, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * True, but does anyone here actually believe they aren't from Coruscant? -- SFH 22:15, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * KFan II doesn't; his edit to that effect were what prompted me to say that. Kuralyov 22:18, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Me neither. Best to leave it as "unknown", or better yet, "various", since their origins are left mysterious.  &mdash; Silly Dan  01:10, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I figure the earliest planet with a date is the homeworld. Coruscant also just makes sense. It's the most populated. It's the galactic capital. All hyperspace routes lead to it. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:16, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * That does make sense. I say we change it back to Unknown (possibly Coruscant).
 * Either way is really fine by me; I just thought I'd bringit up. Kuralyov 02:33, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)

No, Coruscant?
So, it does say that Humans are from Coruscant, correct? How much uncertainty does the passage in question leave? &mdash; Silly Dan 00:37, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Not a lot. Coruscant is the earliest planet with humans living on it. It *is* possible they evolved elsewhere, and were brought to the world, but, according to the NEC, Coruscant's humans colonised Alderaan, Corellia, Corulag, Chandrilla, and pretty much every other famous human world. QuentinGeorge 12:08, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the N.E.C. said "possibly", so we have to say "possibly" too. --Master Starkeiller 19:38, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)

"What makes sense" vs. "what's canon"
I completely disagree that humans evolved on Coruscant. I think NEC was mistaken to imply that. And I have to say this entry should be changed to not suggest the same. Throughout SW material previous to NEC it's often been said that the human homeworld is a forgotten mystery. It has also been established that, due to the extremely far distance from its sun, Coruscant is too cold to comfortably support humans w/o artificial means (Inside the Worlds of Ep I, Complete Locations). It always seemed to me that the reason Coruscant was chosen for the capital of the Republic (and therefore that all hyperspace routes lead to it, etc.) was that it is as centrally located in the galaxy as possible w/o radiation or the navigational hazards of the core becoming too big of a problem. It makes more sense for a world-covering city to be built on a barren planet with no living indigenous intelligent species than to intentionally eradicate one's native ecosystem to build one. If humans had evolved on Coruscant, in-universe scientists would have found evidence (fosil, etc.) to prove it, and there would be no mystery.
 * Nevertheless, if it's in the NEC, that's what we have to use. If we can add material from other sources which specifially mention the ambiguity and confusion, though, that's OK too.  &mdash; Silly Dan  01:49, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that even in-universe characters of the Galaxy don't know the answer but they TEND to believe that the most likely candidate is Coruscant. But anyway, if Coruscant is the only planet where the Zhell lived, which are the pre-humans, then how can humans come from another planet? Did the Zhell travel in space? MoffRebus 01:54, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I personally beleive that Humans evolved on Coruscant, since all information says that they were the ones who turned it into an ecumenopolis. But I'm open to interpretation. Perhaps the Zhell were not native to Coruscant. Perhaps they aren't humanity's ancestors. It's a little hard to do archeological reasearch when the ground is several kilometers beneath you. -- SFH 02:07, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * As stated above, humans were known to be on Coruscant as early as 100,000 BBY. Our own site's timeline has humans defending their 13 nations against the Taung oppression around 200,000 BBY.  Interstellar space travel does start with the Columi circa 2,000,000 BBY, but they most likely didn't transport humans from homeworld to homeworld.  The next interstellar travel story is of the Kwa and their Infinity Gate circa 100,000 BBY, at which point humans have already covered Coruscant completely with their city.  Somehow though, the Taung were able to relocate to Roon, a planet in the Outer Rim, in 200,000 BBY.  Probably a mistake made by an unthinking or unresearching author.  Most likely, Coruscant is the human homeworld.  All this aside, we have no reason to believe it isn't.       Ewok Jedi 16:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Average height
Only 1.7 metres? Just look at some human characters, they were much taller than 1.7. Darth Vader was 2.02, Palpatine was one of the shortest humans, but he was still 1.73! - TopAce 19:30 (GMT +1h) 10th September 2005
 * Perhaps we should put between 1.7 to 1.9 meters. -- SFH 18:21, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

It all happens in a Galaxy Far Far Away, but it's incredibly stupid to assume that Humans in it had a different average height than Humans on Earth. Almost no character/actors are exactly as tall as what we've listed as average because most of them belong to the same ethnicity. And a lot of them aren't even that tall (take a look at Leia/Fisher or Luke/Hammill). We shouldn't keep 1.80 as a compromise because 1.70 is already a compromise between all the taller actors and the real average Human height, which is, I believe, actually a few centimiters shorter than 1.70. --Ace ETP 19:29, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, diet and race are important factors in human height Those aren't the same in Star Wars.-LtNOWIS 20:21, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * But exactly what would lead you to assume that their effects are any different than as in the Real World, when "White" Human characters in Star Wars have the about the same average height as Caucasians on Earth? --Ace_ETP 02:09, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * The effects of race, diet and genetics would be the same. Well, maybe race would be different, since real-world ethnicities don't exist the Star Wars galaxy. What would be different is the proportions. I wouldn't be surprised if the Star Wars galaxy has a higher percentage of "white" humans, and thus a different average human height would be reached. The same goes for nutrition.-LtNOWIS 03:34, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * True, but unlike as it with other species, an official source has never provided us with a figure indicating the average height for Humans in the GFFA (probably because it's a bit unnecesary), so why don't we just leave it as it is and try not to be overly speculative? --Ace_ETP 20:34, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization
There's been some question about whether we should capitalize "Human", just as we capitalize the names of all the other alien species, or if we should leave it uncapitalized as is standard in real-world articles. Here's a quick survey of the sources I had handy. It seems that "human" predominates, but "Human" is also common. &mdash; Silly Dan 01:43, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

"human"

 * The Abduction of Crying Dawn Singer
 * Alien Encounters
 * Cracken's Rebel Field Guide
 * Death in the Undercity
 * The Essential Guide to Alien Species
 * The Essential Guide to Planets and Moons
 * Gamemaster Screen, Revised
 * Heroes and Rogues
 * The New Essential Chronology
 * Platt's Smugglers Guide
 * Pirates & Privateers
 * Shadows of the Empire Planets Guide
 * Star Wars Encyclopedia
 * Star Wars Trilogy Sourcebook - Special Edition
 * The Thrawn Trilogy Sourcebook
 * The Truce at Bakura
 * Wretched Hives of Scum and Villainy

"Human"

 * Galaxy Guide 4: Alien Races
 * Galaxy Guide 6: Tramp Freighters
 * Galaxy Guide 8: Scouts
 * Galaxy Guide 9: Fragments from the Rim
 * Galaxy Guide 12: Aliens - Enemies and Allies
 * Han Solo and the Corporate Sector Sourcebook
 * Platt's Starport Guide
 * Rebel Alliance Sourcebook
 * Star Wars: The Roleplaying Game, Second Edition
 * Ultimate Alien Anthology

Comments

 * I propose we find a compromise, like capitalizing when referring to species (eg. 'he found Twi'leks and Humans in the cantina') but non in almost everywhere else (eg. 'Han Solo was a human from Corellia'). But if the sources are inconsistent, it wouldn't hurt to capitalise it even it it "shouldn't" MoffRebus 01:51, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree we should develop a consistent position, even if West End Games never came up with one. (What do the Wizards of the Coast books use?  Anyone know?)  &mdash; Silly Dan  01:54, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * WOTC capitalizes Human, as far as I know, but the Databank doesn't. I'm for capitalization, as I see no reason why Humans should be treated differently than other species. - Sikon [ Talk ] 05:42, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... Well, it seems very old and rpg sources are the only ones capitalizing it. It should be "human". It is also "human" in the NEC, and the NEC's our Bible, right? Nice job researching, Silly Dan! --Master Starkeiller 20:25, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Speak for yourself, my Bible is Fragments from the Rim. 8)  Perhaps someone could expand this list by checking more recent sources?  &mdash; Silly Dan  04:06, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but Fragments from the Rim is more than a decade old and the NEC just came out. That's the main reason I trust it more. --Master Starkeiller 06:21, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

It's quite clear that Lucasfilm has not set a standard regarding capitalization, since there seems to be an even share of Humans and humans across all official sources. Looking to the sources won't be any help; we need to make our own decision for a Wookieepedia standard. I say "Humans", treating them just like any other sentient species. --Azizlight 11:23, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * If it's not a matter of official policy and it is just between us, we should vote. --Master Starkeiller 13:26, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Come on people, let's vote. I'll decap Humans on sight while others will capitalize them. If people disagree and they can't find a solution through discussion (and I think there isn't much more to be said on this, there are two views, treatment like other species and official sources and both views have been expressed), they should vote. --Master Starkeiller 12:01, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, now that this article has been greatly expanded with inconsistent capitalization, we probably should vote. Here or on Manual of Style?  &mdash; Silly Dan  03:42, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Human is only capitalised when it is at the begining of a sentence or in a title such as a class title (Human Ecology 101, Computational Humanities). When referring to human beings, it is not capitalised (For example, sociology is the science or study of the origin, history, and constitution of human society). 129.11.13.92 22:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's true enough, in your so-called "real" "world". 8)  If we do settle on anything in the MoS, we should keep "human" uncapitalized in out-of-universe articles. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please continue this discussion at Consensus track/Capitalization of Human, if you want to express an opinion. Thanks. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Pic
I hope this pic is more appropriate than the CGI one (btw is it from the RPG corebook?). Another candidate would be Image:Lukemaraben.jpg (male, female and infant). Which do you prefer? MoffRebus 22:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC) I noticed it had been changed to a picture of the Daragons: we should probably keeep the movie shot as the main picture. The article's long enough for more pictures, though, so I put that picture in the historically appropriate place. I also added a picture for the Near-Humans section of Vader, Palpatine, another Grand Admiral, and Thrawn &mdash; I don't like it that much, however, and would like to see it replaced with, say, a picture of Thawn and Pellaeon, or a picture of a pureblood and part-Human ancient Sith. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised a good screenshot wasn't used before. I definitely prefer a screenshot to a painting, comic panel, or CGI art.  Thanks! &mdash; Silly Dan 00:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is an example of how it is always hard to state the obvious... - Sikon [ Talk ] 13:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you expand on that? What should be changed? &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing is obvious. Maybe some alien reads us :) MoffRebus 15:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Obvious for the writers, not necessarily readers. - Sikon [ Talk ] 01:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization
To whoever disregarded the Consensus Track vote and decapitalized it, "thank" you. - Sikon [ Talk ] 10:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Mind you, since the vote isn't finished, it's not worth recapitalizing it. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 04:40, 5 April 2006 (PDT)
 * It is done now: by a 12-1 margin, consensus was that we should capitalize it. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Has this Human/Earth theory been explored?
Since Star Wars happened "A Long Time Ago", has their been any exploration of whether humans on earth might be descendants of the Star Wars humans?
 * I'm pretty sure it hasn't. It would be on List of references to Earth in Star Wars  if it had. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Taung pic
Since Taungs and Sith are near-humans (biologcally related), and TAungs are as ancient as Zhells (wish we had an image of them), I thought putting a pic of Mandalore to indicate a possible early appearance. I know it sounds outrageous to some but I'd like to hear some oppinions MoffRebus 00:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know...seems a little too speculative to me. (Of course, something in the back of my brain like to pretend Alien Exodus is canon, so we'd put a picture of an australopithecine there...) Maybe someone else disagrees with me? &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Additional quote
I was thinking about adding Leia Organa's quote, "And you call yourselves humans." in this article. Where would it be appropriate?
 * Fixed it. Try to improve it with details MoffRebus 22:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Lifespan
Have we got a Tolkein-esque lifespan thing going on here? The NEGtAS says that humans can live to 120 years, and some human Jedi up to 200 years! What-the-heck? Cutch 04:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you had some humans living in other stellar systems, you would see that they would live up to hundreds of Earth years, or only few Earth years. Aging is different in other planets. Years in Star Wars refers to Coruscanti years. Humans of other planets would definitely age differently MoffRebus 07:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You also have to remember that Humans in the Galaxy and humans in the Milky Way are different species. Different origins, different lifespans, different gestation periods. Even if they were somehow the same, medical technology in the Galaxy would of undoubtedbly extended the Human lifespan. We're talking about a civilization whose outdated transport ships put out at least three times the planets whole nuclear arsenal in a single medium shot. Lord Patrick 02:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Rakata
Why is it said that humans were subtegated by the Rakata when the Guardian droid makes it very clear that Revan's race (human) is not one of the "slave races"? Is this another mistake from the NEC? (Ulicus 16:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC))
 * (late reply) Yes, it's in the NEC (which, being a canonical sourcebook, must be right. 8) )  Perhaps the Star Map was made before the Rakata enslaved the Human-populated core worlds? But that's just my conjecture. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

human + twi'lek = ?
I am writing a story and I was wondering if a twi'lek and a human could have a baby together. If so, would it only have one lekku? thanks, Quinlanfan 00:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)