Forum:CT:Clones and Infoboxes - Part One

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Clones and Infoboxes - Part One
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 "Genetic donor(s)" field for Descriptive information; No consensus for "Clone(s)" field. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

This is the first of hopefully only two votes following up Forum:SH:Clone Troopers and Infoboxes. The second vote is regarding whether or not clones should be included in familial-oriented fields (ie. "brother," "sister," etc.), which currently needs further discussion.

This vote is regarding a proposed expansion of {{Character}} to include fields regarding clones and genetic donors in the infobox. There are three individual votes, outlined below. Both fields will be optional, as they do not apply to most characters, only certain ones.

Once again, this is not about the personal, familial affiliations between clones, other clones, and/or donors that may or may not exist—only their genetic connection where applicable. These merit further discusson, which is ongoing on the SH linked above.

Vote 1: "Genetic donor(s)" field

The first of the proposed fields is perhaps the most simple: a distinct, separate field for the genetic donor from which a clone was, well... cloned. For example, this field would show Luke Skywalker for Luuke Skywalker, Jango Fett for most clone troopers, and Darth Sidious for Dathan. It is very important to note that this field is not intended to be mutually exclusive with the "Parent" field, but is simultaneously not to be confused with it. There is more than ample evidence to showcase clones not considering their genetic donor to be their parental figure, but there are also specific cases such as Boba Fett and the aforementioned Dathan where their donor is also considered their parental figure. Ergo, while Luke is Luuke's donor, he is not his father. This includes from a biological standpoint, under which they would technically be the same person.

To summarize, Vote 1 is to add the field "Genetic donor(s)" to the character infobox, which will be used to showcase individuals from which the article subject was cloned, not their biological or cultural parental figure. Example for Luuke Skywalker: "Genetic donor(s) = Luke Skywalker"

Support

  1. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  2. —spookywillowwtalk 00:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  3. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 00:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  4. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 01:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  5. Bonzane10 Sabine Starbird black belt in card-jitsu 01:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  6. Lewisr (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  7. Panther436 RedNihilEye (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  8. SorcererSupreme21 (talk) 06:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  9. Imperators II(Talk) 08:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  10. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 09:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  11. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  12. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  13. Jedi Order SHCosmos (He/Him ✦ Talk) 01:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  14. Zed42 Wolfpack emblem (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  15. For quite a few reasons this is separate enough from the concept of a parent Fan26 (Talk) 17:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  16. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 09:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. It's valid, but I just don't think it's necessary. Infoboxes are long enough as they are. OOM 224 (he/him) 16:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  2. Per OOM, it feels like there's a new field every other week now. Efe Önem (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  3. I'd rather just use the parent infobox field and parenthetically specify genetic donor if necessary. Wok142 (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
    • Adding to what I said above: it is definitely separate enough from a parent situation, but it is not common enough to warrant an infobox inclusion for me (per OOM). Wok142 (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  4. SaintSirNicholas (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  5. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 17:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Vote 2: "Clone(s)" field

This one is a bit more complicated. As with the "Genetic donor(s)" field, it should be noted that this field is not to be confused with—but is also not mutually exclusive with—the "Children" field, as clones are genetically not an individual's child and, more often than not, not considered their child culturally. The reason this one is complex is primarily by means of implementation. The vast majority of characters that will utilize this field will have only one to a few clones listed. However, there are some individuals with thousands if not millions of clones—the big one being Jango Fett. There are methods of clarifying this without listing every single clone trooper (such as listing non-CT Jango clones such as Boba, Emerie, and Omega, and then something like "all clone troopers grown from Jango Fett's genetic template"), and while this implementation merits further discussion, for now it may be codified to denote that distinctly identified groups of clones, such as the clone troopers, should not be listed individually but instead listed as a plurality. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

To summarize, Vote 2 is to add the field "Clone(s)" to the character infobox, which will be used to showcase individuals that were cloned from the genetic material of the article subject, not their biological or cultural children. Example for Darth Sidious: "Clone(s) = Dathan".

Vote 2 also has a second option ("Support with Plurality Note") to codify the addition of the editor-only note "Any distinctly identified groups of clones must be listed as a plurality rather than individually listed." The option "Support Without Plurality Note" is against the addition of this note.

Support with Plurality Note

  1. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  2. Per vote amendments —spookywillowwtalk 00:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  3. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 01:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  4. Cloning is a well-established staple of the Star Wars mythos, and if we're consider a separate field for a clone's genetic donor, then a field for a donor's clones should definitely be there as well. Imperators II(Talk) 08:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  5. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 09:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  6. Jedi Order SHCosmos (He/Him ✦ Talk) 01:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  7. Per Imp. The distinction for Jango is most sensible; we already have the children field whereupon reading, one would likely ask why Jango's clones aside from Boba are not listed. OOM 224 (he/him) 20:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  8. Per Imp - if we're adding a donor field, makes sense to add the inverse. Zed42 Wolfpack emblem (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Support Without Plurality Note

Oppose

I feel like, generally, the character templates are dealing with increasing levels of infobox bloat. Because this vote is—by wording—simply for the addition of the field, and the implementation of the field is being left to further discussion and not codified in stone, it would mean it'd be much harder to remove a large list of Jango clones from this field if it were added because no policy or CT ever passed to prevent it. I don't really want to be stuck with the list in the case and would rather a proposal that bundles the addition of the field with specifically how we treat individuals with [more than X number of clones].—spookywillowwtalk 00:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  1. I'm not a fan of implementing the field and then arbitrarily deciding who to list/not list for Jango. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 00:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
    • The codification is for any large, explicitly defined group of clones and does not apply specifically to Jango. It is merely to prevent bloat as there is no reasonable way to list every single clone trooper (or similar such groups where applicable) under the section. I suppose there is an argument for "all or nothing" but I feel there are ways to denote large groups of clones in a manner that prevents bloat. A differen type of subject, but the way Galactic Center states "All 4 billion stars in the galaxy" is a good example of what it would be like. Either way, it isn’t intrinsically exclusionary. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  2. Bonzane10 Sabine Starbird black belt in card-jitsu 01:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  3. Lewisr (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  4. I think someone's clones are only relevant enough for the infobox if they're considered their child, which the children field works fine for Panther436 RedNihilEye (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  5. SorcererSupreme21 (talk) 06:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  6. Per Dani TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  7. Efe Önem (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  8. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  9. Per Panther. Wok142 (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  10. SaintSirNicholas (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  11. Really don't see how this is necessary, a clone of them isn't as core to an individual's identity as the genetic donor is to an individual who is themselves a clone Fan26 (Talk) 17:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  12. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 17:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  13. Per Fan. Xd1358 (Talk) 21:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  14. Editoronthewiki (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  15. Per BFan. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 09:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Vote 3: The Infobox Section

This vote only applies if one or both of the above votes pass, and is to decide which section of the infobox the fields will go under should they be added. This is a separate vote as there is room to argue that they could belong in any one of the four character infobox categories, so it merits democracy in that regard. Possible reasons for each section are outlined below:

  • Biographical information: The individual's status as a donor or clone is relevant to the circumstances of their birth and/or history.
  • Descriptive information: The individual's status as a donor or clone is, like most of the traits listed in this section, genetic or physical in nature.
  • Family information: The individual is biologically related, albeit as an exact duplicate rather than parent/child, to their donor or clone(s), which some may consider familial in nature.
  • Chronological and political information: The individual's status as a donor or clone is related to their personal chronology—it is important to their history in this manner. (In my personal opinion this section has the weakest argument for housing these fields).

Biographical information

JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 01:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Descriptive information

  1. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  2. —spookywillowwtalk 00:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  3. Bonzane10 Sabine Starbird black belt in card-jitsu 01:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  4. Now that I went and reviewed an infobox, this actually the section I meant. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 01:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  5. Lewisr (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  6. Panther436 RedNihilEye (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  7. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 09:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  8. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  9. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  10. It goes better with the species field than it does any of the others. Jedi Order SHCosmos (He/Him ✦ Talk) 01:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  11. Sanathestarr (talk) 10:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  12. OOM 224 (he/him) 20:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  13. Zed42 Wolfpack emblem (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  14. Fan26 (Talk) 17:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  15. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 09:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Family information

Chronological and political information

Discuss

  • I'm really not sure why the donor and clone fields are proposed to be optional. We have a non-optional field for fricking feather color, and you could literally make an argument that most of the other fields do not apply to "most characters" either. I'd really leave optional fields up to specific classes of individuals, such as the current setup for fields for musician characters and pets. "Individuals who were cloned" doesn't really seem like a solid proposition for a character class to me. Imperators II(Talk) 08:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
    • The main reasoning for them being optional was purely due to the non-applicability to most characters, the idea wasn't that clones were a "class" of individuals. If you would prefer they are non-optional, I can add that to this vote or it can be changed in a future vote. Whichever you prefer, though the former would be introduced admittedly late-stage into the process of this CT. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
      • Yeah, not reasonable to modify the vote now. Was asking this because it's oddly inconsistent with the infobox practice so far, as I mentioned above. Imperators II(Talk) 20:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)