Talk:Pea
From Wookieepedia, the Star Wars wiki.
[edit] VFD
This article is not needed. Vote for deletion. any link to this page should be directed to the regular wiki. —Unsigned comment by Theopyros (talk • contribs).
- It is needed. It is canonical, so it is needed. If you try to VFD it, I assure you that it will not be deleted.—Darthtyler
Talk 22:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that it's canonical isn't a sufficient reason. But it is needed. We don't know if it's the pea from our universe. If it is, it's a biologial species and we do have a lot of other articles on real species. If it's not the same pea, then we don't know what it is, which means it's something unique to the Star Wars universe, which in turn means the article definitely is needed. --Gurbiza 17:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Size
"Peas were very small things in comparison with most other objects in the galaxy." I question this statement and demand that a source be provided. --Gurbiza 18:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- The source is the quote. All we know about peas is that they were used in a simile describing something very small. The quote comes from Queen of the Empire, a children's book written by Paul and Hollace Davids in the early nineties. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 18:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- "Small" is a relative concept. Peas are only compared to Leia Organa, nothing is said of them being smaller than most other objects! What are "most other objects", anyway? Depending on how you define an "object", there may be an infinite number of both, those smaller and those larger than peas, in which case we cannot apply a comparison between natural numbers. Thus, I am tempted to edit the statement, but since this is a matter of such great importance, I will refrain from acting in haste and will be waiting for additional points of view. --Gurbiza 20:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Let's see... a pea is described as much smaller than a human. Just how many things are bigger than a human? A whole bunch of animals, plus stars, planets, buildings, etc. Therefore, a pea is much smaller than those things as well - of which there are many. The statement is valid. Jorrel
Fraajic 20:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, so many things are bigger than peas. But since we're talking about comparison here, don't you think it's essential to assess the number of smaller things as well? The quote mentions viruses, for instance. I'm fairly sure there is a virus or some other small microbe for every other animal in the Galaxy. Even insects might be small and numerous enough. For each building I give you a grain of sand. For each planet I give you an atom. For each star I give you an elementary particle. Offhand, I'd say smaller things win overwhelmingly. But still, this is all just speculation. We have no source for the size of a pea, we have no source for the number of smaller and bigger things, and since we don't even have a clear definition of an "object", we would need a direct quote, which we also do not have. I suggest we simply remove the statement since we have no source to support or reverse it. --Gurbiza 06:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've ambiguified the statement some. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 10:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have inspected the new revision and conclude that it no longer contains speculative exaggeration harmful to the credibility of the article. Thank you! --Gurbiza 13:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've ambiguified the statement some. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 10:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, so many things are bigger than peas. But since we're talking about comparison here, don't you think it's essential to assess the number of smaller things as well? The quote mentions viruses, for instance. I'm fairly sure there is a virus or some other small microbe for every other animal in the Galaxy. Even insects might be small and numerous enough. For each building I give you a grain of sand. For each planet I give you an atom. For each star I give you an elementary particle. Offhand, I'd say smaller things win overwhelmingly. But still, this is all just speculation. We have no source for the size of a pea, we have no source for the number of smaller and bigger things, and since we don't even have a clear definition of an "object", we would need a direct quote, which we also do not have. I suggest we simply remove the statement since we have no source to support or reverse it. --Gurbiza 06:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Let's see... a pea is described as much smaller than a human. Just how many things are bigger than a human? A whole bunch of animals, plus stars, planets, buildings, etc. Therefore, a pea is much smaller than those things as well - of which there are many. The statement is valid. Jorrel
- "Small" is a relative concept. Peas are only compared to Leia Organa, nothing is said of them being smaller than most other objects! What are "most other objects", anyway? Depending on how you define an "object", there may be an infinite number of both, those smaller and those larger than peas, in which case we cannot apply a comparison between natural numbers. Thus, I am tempted to edit the statement, but since this is a matter of such great importance, I will refrain from acting in haste and will be waiting for additional points of view. --Gurbiza 20:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
