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, this page's talk page or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to capitalize Human, with a clear consensus.
A discussion on Talk:Human, over whether "Human" should be capitalized or not, started in January but soon stagnated. Perhaps we should start it up again here?
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. — Silly Dan 01:43, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
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)
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? — 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? — 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). 22.214.171.124 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. —Silly Dan(talk) 22:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Capitalize "Human" in all in-universe articles
(though we could leave it uncapitalized in the Behind the Scenes sections.) —Silly Dan(talk) 23:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, it seems that every novel I've read doesn't capitalize "human", probably because they're going by the editorial style their publication houses would use for non-fiction and novels set in the real world. I found WEG does capitalize about half the time. I'm not surprised by the inconsistency, since any gamer will tell you that RPG books are sometimes indifferently copyedited. —Silly Dan(talk) 23:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.