Forum:CT:Master/Apprentice field criteria

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Master/Apprentice field criteria

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. —spookywilloww^talk 14:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Cancelling this CT per feedback. might return after more evaluation but likely will just abandon this proposal. ThePedantry (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Add specific criteria for adding individuals to the Master/Apprentice fields in the Template:Character infobox. - ThePedantry (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Additions to the Master or Apprentice fields should meet at least one of the following criteria:
- An individual is part of a Jedi or Sith master and apprentice relationship.
  - Example Yoda and Dooku
  - Example Darth Sidious and Dooku
- An individual is with an official reference of being a master and apprentice
  - Example Ty Yorrick and Drewen Qweebjillan
  - Example Dooku and Savage Opress
- An individual with an official reference of being a Mentor or Protégé/meno
  - Example Ellian Zahra was introduced as Wilhuff Tarkin protégé within Star Wars (2020) 7
  - Example Karyn Faro is specifically called Mitth'raw'nuruodo's protégé in Thrawn: Treason
- An individual with a long term relationship of learning and guidance
  - Example Eli N. Vanto was not specifically identified as Mitth'raw'nuruodo's protégé but in the novel Thrawn, Thrawn specifically states: "I had seen other qualities in him, qualities I have spent the past few years helping him develop."
Examples of instances that would not be in the infobox, but can rather be noted in the article's prose:
- Individuals that are part of teachers/student relationships
  - Yoda and the members of Bear Clan, Reva Sevander's Initiate clan, ect.
  - Huyang and Kanan Jarrus, Petro, Katooni, ect.
- Individuals who receive limited training in specific skills
  - Quint Cresadde and Kay Vess

Support

~~As Nom. -ThePedantry (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)~~

~~Yasen Nestorov (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)~~

CometSmudge (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Until further refined. But too complex a topic to start trying to sub-vote it out mid-vote because it'll result in needing to @ people for the changes quite a lot each time a new thing is split off which is generally inefficient. So mostly opposing to send it back to SH for wording and subvote definition refinement.—spookywilloww^talk 14:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Abandoning this endeavor, seems best to leave it as is. ThePedantry (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Imperators II^(Talk) 16:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Yasen Nestorov (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
This is a good thing to hash out but it would be best to better hash it out first! Wok142 (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Lewisr (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Fan26 (Talk) 01:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 14:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Mor9347 ^(Talk) 04:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

A lot of these criteria still seem very arbitrary to me. For example, the learning/guidance vs. teacher and student thing seems highly subjective. If the main delineation is a time period, then does it depend on how frequently they interact over that time? I know I have more thoughts but this is just what comes to mind right now. Wok142 (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- One of the things guiding this is Yoda, who we could list almost every known member of the Jedi order under the apprentice section if we use a teacher and student as criteria. So this was trying to separate out a longterm mentorship from training a class of people. If that makes sense. ThePedantry (talk) 04:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
It's... kinda strange that the first clause singles out the Jedi and the Sith but ignores the existence of other, rather similar/related groups, such as the Je'daii or the Imperial Knights. Imperators II^(Talk) 07:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- the first bullet point could change to Jedi, Sith or other force orders master and apprentice relationship. ThePedantry (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  - Perhaps. In that case Dooku and Oppress would probably slide under that, then. Imperators II^(Talk) 07:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Honestly I'd say it'd be a better idea to divide this into multiple votes because people might agree, for example, with allowing Jedi/Sith master-apprentice relation type and disallowing the Yoda-Initiates type or the Cresadde-Vess type but also disagree with allowing the mentor/protégé examples. Imperators II^(Talk) 07:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'd second a suggestion to split the votes out since I'd personally oppose including mentor relationships at all but would currently have to oppose the entire proposal to do that. Ayrehead02 (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Also, if the latter example is adopted protégé articles would label their mentors as their "masters" which also feels kinda off. Imperators II^(Talk) 07:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- - this was what came from the admitting minimal feedback I got from the SH. Labeling them as mentor and protégé within the fields with a (mentor) should address that? - ThePedantry (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Should have gone through the drafting stage first. My specific gripe with this is that nowhere does this vote state where it should be featured after the voting end (it should be made clear that will be in the infobox documentation). Furthermore, not a big fan of the "with an official reference" phrasing. NanoLuuke^{Cloning Facility} 09:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm more on the feeling that Master & Apprentice fields should be basically exclusively to Jedi/Sith/Force organizations as I feel that is what it was originally intended to be used for. --Vitus Infinitus^Talk 01:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)