This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. The result of the debate was support non-capitalization of human in New Canon articles.. CadeCalrayn 17:19, June 3, 2015 (UTC)
Our longstanding policy for in-universe articles is to capitalize the word "Human" as we would for other sentient species. This policy can be found in the Manual of Style here. However, as New Canon sources are coming out, we have ample evidence indicating that this is not the appropriate practice to follow for our in-universe Canon articles. I present the following list of examples from New Canon sources of "human" not being capitalized:
A New Dawn
One of his regular dueling partners, a red-skinned humanoid boy, met him in the doorway, training weapon in hand.
He was as human as she was, but much of his body had been replaced.
The eyes appeared meant for some other species besides humans; Vidian had chosen them solely for what they could do.
He pushed past Cauley, the young human ensign, and tapped a command key.
A quavering nonhuman voice was piped onto the bridge.
Tarkin glanced at the silver-bodied humaniform couturier.
On those long days when the moon emerged into the light of the system's distant yellow sun, the surface glare was too intense for human eyes, and the base's viewports had to be sealed or polarized.
Drawing himself up to his full height, which was just above human average, he adopted a serious expression, cradling his chin in his right hand.
A sandy-haired human with protruding ears, Thon was as untried as he sounded.
"The Idellian scanner isolated thirty lifeforms-a crew of humans and near-humans-which is in keeping with the practice of placing sentients in command of most Providence-class ships."
Servants of the Empire: Edge of the Galaxy
"I have no issues with aliens myself-some of my best friends are nonhumans-but some grav-ball fans object to alien physiognomies, seeing them as giving nonhumans an edge."
"There's no league rule against nonhuman players."
Ultimate Star Wars
Although Naboo's sparse population embraces peace and tranquility, they and the indigenous Gungans navigate an uneasy relationship for hundreds of years until they ally to defend their verdant world.
Little is known about the reptilian humanoids called the Elders, who waged war with ancient Gungans and left numerous monuments on Naboo.
Star Wars in 100 Scenes
Nass refuses - his aquatic people dislike Naboo’s human inhabitants.
The Gungans think Naboo's humans are arrogant and selfish, but Padmé's humble gesture shows Nass they can be friends.
Their planet has been freed, and a new era of peace has begun, one that will unite the planet's human and Gungan citizens.
I am therefore proposing that we standardize an exception to our Manual of Style stating that contrary to our current Legends policy, Canon articles should not capitalize "human" or "humanoid." The first paragraph of that section will now read as follows:
In all sections of Canon in-universe articles, the word "human" is not to be capitalized, even though other sentient species (Twi'lek, Rodian, Wookiee, etc.) are. Note, however, that Star Wars Legends in-universe articles do capitalize the words "Human" and "Near-Human." The word "humanoid" is not to be capitalized in any in-universe article.
Should be changed in Legends articles too, partly for consistency and partly because small-h Legends sources still predominate. Take that, me from ten years ago! —Silly Dan (talk) 19:14, May 31, 2015 (UTC)
Much as I love the idea of capitalizing it just to be contrary, I must admit this makes more sense. -- Darth Culator(Talk) 16:12, June 3, 2015 (UTC)
Care to give a reason? CadeCalrayn 02:18, May 25, 2015 (UTC)
I know this isn't a great reason, but I did it for consistencies sake. In most Legends content, human isn't capitalized but we decided to capitalize it anyways so as to consistent with most other species. I don't see why the Canon Human should be treated any differently. - AV-6R7User talk:AV-6R7 14:50, May 25, 2015 (UTC)
Different context. Listing information like that allows for the capitalization of a word after a colon, even if that word isn't a proper noun. The key is how it's used in a sentence, and Ultimate Star Wars does not capitalize "human" in sentences. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 01:21, May 27, 2015 (UTC)
You have no argument to stand on here, AV-6R7. Your self-admitted poor reason for opposing this has been debunked. You basically have two choices here: Ignore Canon and continue to oppose this, or accept that Canon sources do not capitalize "human" and support the policy change. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:12, May 27, 2015 (UTC)
Fine, strike my vote in opposition. I will be switching sides. - AV-6R7User talk:AV-6R7 02:20, May 27, 2015 (UTC)
This is clearly going to pass anyway (in fact, it's eligible for closing right now, even with this vote), but here's my vote of protest, for the same reason we initially chose to capitalize it for Legends: consistency. And to preemptively rebut the arguments immediately above, I have never seen a Legends novel that capitalized "human". In fact, I have never seen "Human" with a capital "H" in a Legends source outside of RPG books and grammatical necessity (start of a sentence, etc.). So the fact that Canon sources do not capitalize it does not change the situation at all. —MJ—Training Room 07:09, June 3, 2015 (UTC)
This is an absolutely ludicrous statement, and it simply boggles my mind that you and AV-6R7 have both completely failed to grasp this situation. Canon articles are not subject to the whims of anything that goes on in the defunct world of Star Wars Legends. I don't know what I have to do or say to make you understand that. Whether one Legends source or a thousand Legends sources do or don't capitalize "human" is completely irrelevant to this situation. You say that "the fact that Canon sources do not capitalize it does not change the situation at all." That is completely wrong. The fact that Canon sources don't capitalize "human" is the only thing that matters here. It is the responsibility of our Canon articles to adhere to the formatting of Canon sources. To choose to ignore this because you're trying to stay "consistent" with Legends is not only to ignore Canon, but it runs contradictory to everything we've been doing here since Day 1. I don't know how else to make that clearer for you. If you can't understand that, I question whether you're even qualified to have an opinion on this matter. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 08:36, June 3, 2015 (UTC)
I don' think he means consistent with Legends, but rather consistent with other named sentient species. If I understand MJ well, he means that we chose to capitalize Human in Legends because all the others (Twi'lek, Hutt, Wookiee, Rodian) are capitalized when non-sentient species are not (bantha, womprat, krayt dragon). And THAT hasn't changed: canon sources still capitalize everything sentient, except humans. What he means isn't that nothing has changed from Legends to Canon, he means that our original reasoning still applies. --LelalMekha (talk) 09:09, June 3, 2015 (UTC)
What you're saying isn't even true, because our original reasoning for capitalizing human in Legends is not the same situation that we're faced with here. We have a dozen or more sources in Legends that capitalize Human, so we effectively have a choice between capitalizing or not capitalizing. In Canon, there is no choice. There is only the option to not capitalize, because sources never capitalize, so our original reasoning no longer applies. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 09:25, June 3, 2015 (UTC)
I should point out that, even in the time of the "old canon," the word "human" was not capitalized in a majority of sources. However, we decided to capitalize it anyway just as the name of any other sentient species (Twi'lek, Rodian, Wookiee) in the Star Wars universe would be. It was a deliberate choice for the sake of harmonisation. Nothing is different now, and if we choose to de-capitalize human in canon, there's not reason we shouldn't do it in Legends too. --LelalMekha (talk) 08:58, May 25, 2015 (UTC)
Fully agree with the above comments that we should de-capitalize "human" in Legends if we do it in Canon.--Richterbelmont10(come in R2!) 16:14, May 25, 2015 (UTC)
The issue of whether or not to capitalize "Human" in Legends articles is a worthy discussion to have, but I want to note that this CT is not intending to "cement" that particular policy clause into place or anything. This is merely keeping the status quo while attempting to fix the Canon situation, so your decision on whether or not to support this CT should not be influenced by what you think Legends articles should or should not do. That's a discussion that should take place in a fresh forum. That being said, if someone does intend to initiate this discussion formally, I would strongly recommend taking the time to first identify which sources actually do capitalize "Human." I think you're all failing to take into consideration our Naming policy clauses that allow for exceptions to naming proliferation, similar to how we go with Alliance to Restore the Republic instead of Rebel Alliance. If we can judge "a clear and/or consistent intention to rename a subject," to use our policy wording, then Human should trump human. Nonetheless, I ask that we reserve this debate for a fresh forum, and I encourage anyone interested to take the initiative. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:46, May 25, 2015 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.