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.
Forum closed prematurely due to failure to clearly and effectively define voting options. Please see further explanation below. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 10:09, March 3, 2017 (UTC)

---

Regarding the recent discussion we have had on Forum:SH:Galactic LGBT community, I think it would be a good idea to hold a consensus track discussion to reach a consensus on the matter of creating categories for homosexual, bisexual, [Redacted by administration], and transgender characters. Within the new Disney Canon universe, there are several LGBT characters including Delian Mors from Paul S. Kemp's Lords of the Sith, Sinjir Rath Velus, Esmelle, Shirene, Conder Kyl, and Eleodie Maracavanya from Chuck Wendig's The Aftermath Trilogy, and Joph Seastriker's mothers from Claudia Gray's Bloodline. In the Legends continuity, Karen Traviss has confirmed that Goran Beviin and Medrit Vasur were gay; see Forum:KB:LGBT characters. Some Legends sources also mentioned that some alien species like the Hutts^[1], Pui-ui^[2], and Vratix were [Redacted by administration].^[3] A Wrap article also names ten more from Star Wars: The Old Republic.^[4]

I confess that I am unfamiliar with a lot of LGBTQ terminology and [Redacted by administration]. While the aforementioned Canon authors have not used real-world LGBT terminology, their books confirm that those sexual orientations do exist in the Star Wars universe. In the past, I took a big risk when creating the Canon Xenophobia article when only one source Jason Fry's Servants of the Empire: Imperial Justice used the term. Later sources like Aftermath: Life Debt and Star Wars Propaganda: A History of Persuasive Art in the Galaxy have since confirmed that xenophobia and speciesism do exist in the Disney Canon timeline. Some users think we should go ahead and take a risk while others think we should wait for the authors to come up with an in-universe term.

Already, some Star Wars producers and storytellers seem open to the idea. On his personal website, Wendig has defended the presence of gay characters in Aftermath, thus confirming the phenomenon does exist in the Star Wars Canon universe.^[5] J.J. Abrams has also hinted that more gay characters will be appearing in future Canon media.^[6] Some say that we should flow with the winds of change.

It does not make sense to say something does not exist because we don't have a proper name for it. We could even use a Conjecture title. It's like not having articles on torture in both Canon and torture because no official source mentions it. We see it happening albeit in the background in A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back.

This consensus track will focus on the issues of creating categories and articles for individuals attracted to the same sex in both the Legends and Disney Canon universes, and creating Canon and Legends articles dealing with [Redacted by administration]. Per Toprawa and Ralltiir's advice, I have modified voting section on creating categories regarding [Redacted by administration] characters. Vote B is redundant because we already have three categories covering [Redacted by administration], [Redacted by administration], and [Redacted by administration]. We will still have a second voting section on [Redacted by administration] but it will address the issue of whether to maintain the status quo of having categories for [Redacted by administration], [Redacted by administration], and [Redacted by administration] species or creating an article for [Redacted by administration]. My deepest apologies for this mistake and the unnecessary confusion.

These are the voting issues and options:

• Issue A: Individuals attracted to the same sex
  • Option 1: Create categories for "individuals attracted to the same sex" characters in both the Legends and Canon timelines.
  • Option 2: Create categories for "individuals attracted to the same sex" characters plus articles on those gender orientations.
  • Option 3: Maintain the status quo until Canon sources come up with in-universe names.

• Issue B: [Redacted by administration]
  • Option 1: Maintain the status quo of having categories for [Redacted by administration], [Redacted by administration] creatures, and [Redacted by administration] species.
  • Option 2: Creating Canon and Legends article for [Redacted by administration].

Let's have a frank and honest discussion. Please no political or religious debates here. I agree to abide with any decision that the community reaches. To avoid confusion, please post any comments in the discussion section and not the voting section. Thank you. Andykatib 03:52, March 3, 2017 (UTC)

Voting

Issue A: Same-sex characters

Option One: Create categories for "individuals attracted to the same sex" characters in both the Legends and Canon timelines

Option Two: Create categories for "individuals attracted to the same sex" characters plus articles on those gender orientations

1. Andykatib 23:46, March 2, 2017 (UTC)

Option Three: Maintain the status quo until Canon sources come up with in-universe names

1. AV-6R7^{Crew Pit} 01:21, March 3, 2017 (UTC)

Issue B: [Redacted by administration] characters

Option One: Maintain the status quo of having categories for [Redacted by administration], [Redacted by administration] creatures, and [Redacted by administration] species

1. AV-6R7^{Crew Pit} 01:21, March 3, 2017 (UTC)

Option Two: Create Canon and Legends articles for [Redacted by administration]

1. Andykatib 00:57, March 3, 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Since there's a "maintain the status quo" option, the individual votes don't need Support or Oppose sub-headings. Votes can just be placed under the option. - Brandon Rhea^(talk) 23:49, March 2, 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, will deal with that straight away. Will just eliminate the Support and Oppose sub-headings for all the options to make it less confusing. Andykatib 23:52, March 2, 2017 (UTC)

I'd be willing to vote for the creation of a [Redacted by administration] category, since it is used IU and there are concrete examples of such species existing, but I abide by my opinion that "I personally don't think that's it's necessary to have a category for sexual orientation on Wookieepedia, let a lone n entire article devoted to the subject, but that could just be me. I personally don't think that this can't just be something covered somewhere on the subjects page itself." - AV-6R7^{Crew Pit} 23:52, March 2, 2017 (UTC)

• Should we add more options? We could have a few options to take the points you raised into account. But, let's see what the other users think. Andykatib 23:55, March 2, 2017 (UTC)
  • • Until labels are named in canon, I think it might be best to be slightly obtuse in naming the categories (i.e. "Individuals attracted to the same sex" instead of "Homosexuals"). Adamwankenobi (talk) 00:01, March 3, 2017 (UTC)
      • I am glad that we can discuss this matter here. Thanks very much for the points that you raised. Feel free to change the option titles. I will probably change it just to be safe. Andykatib 00:05, March 3, 2017 (UTC)
        • I have to say, the more I look at this, the more I feel this CT is very poorly laid out in terms of voting breakdown. Having an article on homosexuality and a category on homosexuality is not mutually exclusive. One can exist without the other, both can exist, or neither can exist. The current voting options don't really come close to adequately covering these many possible outcomes. I would strongly recommend restructuring the voting options to create separate votes for a homosexuality article and a homosexuality category, with Create and Do Not Create options under each. In fact, if this isn't done shortly, I'm probably just going to do it myself for the sake of obtaining a clean consensus for each separate issue, because right now it's a bureaucratic nightmare. 03:27, March 3, 2017 (UTC)
          • I would like to do it but I have got to go right now to meet up with a friend for an event tonight. Feel free to modify the sections. I am not very experienced with facilitating these things. Sorry for overlooking this feedback. Andykatib 04:56, March 3, 2017 (UTC)
            • And in that response, you've pretty much perfectly summed up why, in my opinion, this CT forum was created hastily and without due consideration for the complexity of this debate and its many possible outcomes. The Senate Hall forum in which this debate started was far from reaching any type of general consensus on how to proceed on this, yet you decided to start this vote anyway, not even waiting for an answer to your comment suggesting a vote. I think the last comment in that forum ("...but I don't have any better ideas offhand. More to ponder.") was a pretty strong indicator of where we all stand on this right now; namely, that we still have a lot to consider, and that it's too early yet to force a vote on this matter. It's my opinion that we would all be better served by waiting and allowing that SH forum to play out a little more, and I would be in favor of closing this forum pre-outcome to let that happen. I would appreciate opinions on this. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:12, March 3, 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I have decided to split the same-sex and [Redacted by administration] votes into two separate issues after some thinking since there is more material on [Redacted by administration] in Star Wars. People can vote on both issues. Andykatib 01:02, March 3, 2017 (UTC)

• I don't understand what the purpose of Vote B is exactly. We already have three categories covering hermaphroditic characters and species ([Redacted by administration], [Redacted by administration], and [Redacted by administration]), so holding a vote to create a category for this subject is meaningless. Please revise that vote accordingly. Otherwise, I'm just going to close the sections of that vote that have no bearing. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 03:03, March 3, 2017 (UTC)
  • My apologies, I really overlooked that. Will remove the [Redacted by administration] section and keep the focus on the LBGT categories and characters. Andykatib 03:36, March 3, 2017 (UTC)

I want to say that I object to the manner in which this forum's introduction has tried to characterize this debate. The forum's author concludes his presentation by urging us not to delve into real-world political/religious debates, yet that's exactly the substance he uses to make his case for having both an article and a category for this subject, by invoking real-world commentary from J.J. Abrams and others, and urging us to "flow with the winds of change." However I choose to vote on this issue, my decision has nothing to do with the issues of real-world modern society and everything to do with what I feel is objectively best in keeping with the internal functionality and purpose of Wookieepedia, as I have tried to explain here. This debate has nothing to do with what the forum author calls "risk," but rather what is encyclopedic and notable insofar as what Canon material presents us with. Is homosexuality notable enough in-universe to maintain a separate article on it, as opposed to alternatively covering it under the Sexes article? This is the question we should be asking ourselves as we make our decision on how to vote, based only on what evidence we have to work with from Canon sources. The real-world social commentary of J.J. Abrams and others, while certainly ripe for Behind-the-scenes material in whatever article we choose to cover this subject under, has no bearing whatsoever in terms of in-universe notability or lack thereof. I urge everyone to keep this in mind as we go forward with this debate. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:01, March 3, 2017 (UTC)

Forum closure

This forum is a complete mess. From the beginning, the forum's author has failed to clearly define the voting options. This has resulted in multiple confusing changes to the different voting sections based on feedback from several users in the Discussion section. Administratively, I would have no choice at this point but to render AV-6R7's second vote above invalid simply because the forum author placed AV's vote under a newly titled option that AV did not outwardly support (see here). With agreement from other administrators, I'm taking the unorthodox step of closing this forum prematurely rather than trying to salvage this mishandled mess.

Although this forum is now closed, anyone may still create a new, fresh CT to cover the topics being discussed here. If you do, you are advised to make sure that any voting options you present are unequivocally defined to avoid any such further confusion. However, I would strongly recommend (and other administrators agree with this), as I suggested above, to allow this discussion to return to the Senate Hall forum where it began so that it may continue to develop and evolve rather than forcing a vote before we're ready to have one. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 10:09, March 3, 2017 (UTC)

Notes and references