Forum:CT:Further defining infobox affiliations

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Further defining infobox affiliations
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. OOM 224 19:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Let us iron out some more remaining discussion points on the affiliations infobox field that we've had on Discord a while back, following up on Forum:SH:Affiliation field usage and Forum:CT:Bounty Bloat. The latter vote added this to the policy:

"Organizations and groups should not be listed under the "Affiliations" field of infoboxes if the article's subject only had a temporary business relation, such as the clients of bounty hunters and mercenaries; unless the affiliation is explicitly stated, such as the "Affiliations" section in the Databank and other reference materials."

I propose that the following be added immediately underneath:
"The "Affiliations" field of character infoboxes is generally for listing groups of which the relevant character is a member and businesses they are associated with. If applicable, a group should be prioritized over another individual (e.g. for Bumblethunk, list the Razzi Syndicate rather than Latts Razzi herself; for the bartender Baldarek, simply list Baruk's Bar instead of listing the boss, Reelo Baruk). In instances of direct employment by an individual that is not part of a larger group, such as the bodyguard Dud Bolt working for Sebulba, the individual can be listed. Relationships defined solely by slavery or imprisonment should not be listed (e.g. do not list Leia Skywalker Organa Solo as affiliated to Jabba Desilijic Tiure or as a part of Jabba's criminal empire; do not list Crosshair as affiliated to the Advanced Science Division)."
Accordingly, I also propose that the next line, "Organizations and groups should not be listed under the "Affiliations" field of infoboxes if the article's subject only had a temporary business relation […],"
—be changed to—
"Groups and individuals should not be listed under the "Affiliations" field of infoboxes if the article's subject only had a temporary business relation […]" (changes in bold).

Listing bars and diners etc. instead of bosses (especially abusive bosses, which would make the article seem a bit degrading) has been the standard for some time. The same goes for the removal of parentheses specifying "as a slave" or "enslaved" or "prisoner," but given that these do get added back sometimes, I believe it's worth codifying and opted to skip the Forum:Senate Hall stage since this has been discussed quite a lot over the years. I use the wording "generally for listing groups" because I recognise that some editors prefer to list individuals for dedicated personal bodyguards like Kallaaddik.

Alternatively, you could vote for Amendment 1 to replace "should not be listed" with "may be listed but must specify "forced servitude" or "prisoner" in parentheses." The examples would also be changed accordingly, and at least we'd have a consistent rule down. I disagree with this though, because as I've said, they're not real affiliations in my book.

Support proposal

  1. OOM 224 15:11, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
  2. Lewisr (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
  3. Imperators II(Talk) 16:02, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
  4. CometSmudge (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
  5. Yasen Nestorov (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
  6. Wok142 (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
  7. Been status-quo for ages anyway.—spookywillowwtalk 17:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
  8. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 17:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
  9. Ayrehead02 (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
  10. 01miki10 Open comlink 20:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
  11. Rakhsh (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
  12. Booply (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Support proposal with amendment 1

  1. I understand the logic for both sides on this issue. Personally, I would like to make the argument in support of Amendment 1 on the basis that, in the case of a character like Oola, who is almost singularly known for being enslaved to an individual or an organization, it feels almost incomplete to not have them listed as being affiliated. Also, in the case of someone like Anakin Skywalker, his enslavement to Watto was a very large part of his story. In terms of whether to consider slavery as part of an affiliation, I would say it largely boils down to whether you consider the definition of the word "affiliation" simply as a state of an individual belonging to an organization, or a choice that the individual character makes. I would typically consider it to be the first, but out of sensitivity for the issue, we should still make the distinction that it was forced servitude. I believe this approach to be the best of both worlds, while doing a better job of covering all bases for representing a character's history of involvement with different organizations. -Nelvaan7 20:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose proposal

Discuss