Forum:CT:Codifying Category Perspective

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 Oppose proposal. Imperators II^(Talk) 16:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

---

This CT is largely just to codify current precedent rather than make any sweeping proposal. Currently, Wookieepedia:Layout Guide#Categories has no clause indicating our standard practice of excluding out-of-universe categories from in-universe pages and vice-versa, save for the obvious exceptions of the Canon/Legends categories and any maintenance categories.

My proposal is to add the following bullet point as a clause to Wookieepedia:Layout Guide#Categories:
"Articles will only list categories pertaining to its own tense; for example, George Lucas, an out-of-universe article, would not have the category Category:Humans, as it is an in-universe category. This excludes categories denoting the article's continuity (Canon/Legends), any maintenance categories, and categories denoting the article's status as a featured, good, or comprehensive article."

Support

As nominator. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. "That's not an in-universe term" has been used to prevent adding categories to in-universe articles before (specifically Category:LGBTQIA+ individuals, despite how we do approach various categories from out-of-universe perspectives (ex. Category:Unidentified fathers). I'd agree with not adding IU-specific categories to OOU articles, but I'm not aware of that being a problem. Immi Thrax (she/her) 02:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
   • While I agree that it isn't a prevalent issue, it's still standard practice and precedent and codifying it wouldn't do any harm IMO. Would adding an exception to the clause for obvious categories such as the LGBTQ+ individuals one suffice? - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
     • Rephrasing my response here as I said it better in Discord: this CT proposal is only in reference to the usage of the categories, not the tense in which they're named. I understand that categories such as Category:LGBTQIA+ individuals and the various unidentifieds don't use IU terms and that's not the matter this CT is meant to tackle; it's only meant to help prevent the use of such IU categories on OOU pages and vice versa. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
     • I can add to the clause's first sentence "categories used in a manner pertainting to," and at the end "Keep in mind certain in-universe categories may be named using out-of-universe terms, such as Category:LGBTQIA+ individuals and various categories using the term "Unidentified." These categories are still to be used in an in-universe tense." - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
2. Tbh I'm not really seeing the problem this is supposed to be addressing, and therefore the need for it. Are people adding IU categories to OOU articles? Or OOU categories to IU articles? Seems like a bit of instruction creep for no discernible purpose to me. Imperators II^(Talk) 09:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
3. Imp took the words right out of my mouth. OOM 224 09:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
4. Per Imp. LucaRoR ^(Talk) 09:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
5. Per Immi and Imp. Rsand 30 (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
6. While I don't see any harm in codifying what is at this point precedent even if it isn't a common issue, I can certainly see your points regarding instruction creep and admit when I'm wrong. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
7. JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 04:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
8. VergenceScatter (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
9. —spookywilloww^talk 23:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
10. NanoLuuke^{Cloning Facility} 00:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
11. Fan26 (Talk) 03:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
12. Manoof (he/him/his) 05:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Discuss