Forum:CT:Partner Field CT - Part the First

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 No consensus on Vote 1; Keep as "Partner(s)" on Vote 2. Imperators II^(Talk) 08:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

---

This is the first round of voting regarding the "Partner(s)" field of the {{Character}} infobox. This portion only covers the field being kept in the infobox, as well as the name of the field; the next CT will cover the scope of the field and what should be included in it, but that will be pending further discussion (of course if the result of this CT is to get rid of the field wholesale or change the field to "Spouse(s)," the next CT would not occur).

It should be noted that Vote 2 in specific is partially regarding the codification of a change made to the field without community consensus; when the field was first created, it was "Spouse(s)." It was changed to "Partner(s)" without a vote being held to change it, and while some agree with the change it should still be codified via a vote.

For relevant discussion on the topic, see the Senate Hall thread here: Forum:SH:Reviving the Infobox Partner Field Debate

Vote 1: Remove the "Partner(s)" field in the Character infobox

Support

1. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
2. It's impossible to define this field concrete enough to please everyone and prevent arguments. It also add a speculative title to undefined relationships. I'd rather see it's removal and explain any relationships in prose. NBDani (they/them)^{Yeager's Repairs} 00:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Per Dani Lewisr (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
4. ^^ JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 01:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
5. Entirely Per Dani. Fan26 (Talk) 03:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
6. Per Dani. ThrawnChiss7 ^{Assembly Cupola} 16:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
7. Per Dani as well --Vitus Infinitus^Talk 17:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
8. JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 20:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
9. Birth and death dates, immediate family members, species and homeworlds are data points. Relationships are complex, multifaceted interactions with infinite variety, details of which can be properly explained in prose. They should not be reduced to data points. Asithol (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
   • I'd say family members are in fact not as clear as data points and are basically just as up to interpretation as romantic partners without clear parameters. In fact, many times they are family members, as many people would consider their, say, spouse to be a member of their family. Master Fredcerique(talk) (he/him) 00:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
     • You're right, sorry for the ambiguity. I meant biological family members. Asithol (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
       • What about adopted family members, like Bail and Breha being adoptive parents of Leia? We can't define family by biology. Sanathestarr (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
         • just to clarify because I realized it wasn't clear from how I phrased it, we can't define family in the infobox by biology Sanathestarr (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
         • This is why I'd support removing all of the family fields entirely. Fan26 (Talk) 16:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
10. OOM 224 (he/him) 14:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
11. Cade Calrayn 16:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
12. SaintSirNicholas (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Rsand 30 (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
3. I think this field makes sense to include but requires proper hammering out to define who and what does and doesn't count as a "partner." Padme Amidala? Definitely Anakin's partner. The Zygerrian Queen or that creepy doctor who walked in on Vader's meditation chamber? Not in my opinion, for the purposes of the infobox. I also agree that "spouse" is too limiting and exclusionary. SorcererSupreme21 (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
4. Bonzane10 (holonet) 01:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
5. I just think it's helpful. Panther436 (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
6. Romantic relationships are typically a very important aspect of a character's identity, and the infobox is meant to give a brief list of the most important facts about a character. Master Fredcerique(talk) (he/him) 09:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
7. Imperators II^(Talk) 14:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
8. I think keeping this field is valuable to the reader for quick reference and it will seem out of place if we have the other family fields but lack the ability to list someone's significant other, especially if its the parent to the listed children. The challenge will be writing out guidelines to sufficiently make clear what should and should not be in the field, but I believe it's achieveable and have seen plenty of other wikis who manage to use the field effectively. Ayrehead02 (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
9. I think the field should be kept in the infobox. We'll need to figure out rules and stuff for who qualifies and who doesn't, but the field is too important to be removed. Sanathestarr (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
10. <-Omicron^{(Leave a message at the BEEP!)} 16:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
11. DarthVorath (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

    To echo the others, partners are a valid form of relationship and they are extremely important to someone's identity. We use the "partners" field on my own home wiki to some success, so I don't see why it can't be used here too. —SnowedLightning (they/them) 21:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC) (Vote struck, reason: Per policy: Additional provisions, item 1 -- Imperators II^(Talk) 22:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC))

12. Supreme Emperor ^Holocomm 23:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
13. Many readers, will find this info useful. ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ he/him/his 04:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Vote 2: "Partner(s)" or "Spouse(s)"

Keep as "Partner(s)"

1. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Glad to finally codify this. Rsand 30 (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
3. "Spouse" isn't useful for notable romantic relationships that simply lacked official marriage, especially for species and cultures who might not even have that. I would definitely include Satine under Obi-Wan's "Partners" field, but not under "Spouses". SorcererSupreme21 (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
   • Not to mention "spouse(s)" is restrictive even from an IRL standpoint; as Snowy brought up in the older SH thread from a while back, not every couple in a marriage-adjacent relationship uses that term. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
   • This is the problem with the field in my opinion. We know for a fact Obi-Wan and Satine never officially dated. They did confessed feelings for each other and Obi-Wan would have said yes if she asked, but it never happened. To put them in eachothers "partner" field is applying a label they themselves never had. I agree the field is worth something, but it's impossible to properly contain everything in a one-word field. NBDani (they/them)^{Yeager's Repairs} 16:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
   • Was going to echo the Satine/Obi-Wan one was one that would be a good canon example of one to not qualify due to mutual attraction but lack of relationship. Comparative to Quinlan/Ventress who're referred to definitively by the term 'lovers' both IU and OOU, Satine and Kenobi don't necessarily do such.—spookywilloww^talk 20:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
4. Bonzane10 (holonet) 01:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
5. Panther436 (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
6. If kept certainly fits better than spouses, though ofc only when defined properly to avoid non-reciprocated crushes, flings, and subjectivity especially.—spookywilloww^talk 03:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
7. Imperators II^(Talk) 07:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
8. Yeah, let's do it right this time and codify this. Master Fredcerique(talk) (he/him) 09:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
9. There needs to be clear and strict requirements though. ThrawnChiss7 ^{Assembly Cupola} 16:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
10. Ayrehead02 (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
11. OOM 224 (he/him) 14:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
12. Sanathestarr (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
13. Cade Calrayn 16:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

    —SnowedLightning (they/them) 07:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC) (Vote struck, reason: Per policy: Additional provisions, item 1 -- Imperators II^(Talk) 22:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC))

14. Partner is a better choice. Supreme Emperor ^Holocomm 23:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
15. ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ he/him/his 04:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Revert to "Spouse(s)"

Discuss

Hey DFaceG, I'm pretty sure you are not allowed to change the details of the vote mid vote without notifying people. This is per Wookieepedia:Consensus which states that "Once a proposal is offered in a consensus forum, it must remain unchanged following the commencement of voting" unless you contanct the individuals who have voted.. ThrawnChiss7 ^{Assembly Cupola} 21:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• You'll note, however, that what people have actually voted on has not changed at all. Imperators II^(Talk) 21:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I guess you're right, his original wording would have the exact same effect, so it qualifies as a minor change that doesn't require notification to voters. ThrawnChiss7 ^{Assembly Cupola} 22:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)