Forum:CT:Partner Field CT - Part the Second

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Partner Field CT - Part the Second

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 linking to the criteria page via infobox documentation. OOM 224 (he/him) 10:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

First SH Thread: Forum:SH:Reviving the Infobox Partner Field Debate
Previous CT: Forum:CT:Partner Field CT - Part the First
Second SH Thread: Forum:SH:Infobox Partner Field - Part Two

It's been a good few months since the debate regarding the "Partner(s)" field on the Character infobox was re-ignited, and after the first Senate Hall thread and first CT, it was codified that its name would remain under "Partner(s)" (after it was changed from "Spouse(s)" without a consensus), but there was no consensus in the CT thread on whether or not the field should actually remain. While current policy/precedent dictates the vote on the field's mere existence cannot be re-counted for another few months, we can vote on the nature of the field and how its implementation can be carried out.

Thus stepped forward Spookywilloww, who created a draft for new guidelines regarding what types of relationships would, in fact, qualify for the field. It was later posted on the second Senate Hall thread, and while opinions on the field even existing still seem mixed, there seems to be positive reactions towards Spooky's draft. Thus, while we await the second vote to determine the field's ultimate fate, for now we can vote on implementing Spooky's draft for the guidelines. Keep in mind this would be a hefty update to the Character template's documentation—Spooky was thorough.

The vote on this Consensus Track thread is, therefore, to replace the excerpt "The "partners" field is not for any romantic partners, but for "life partners," such as couples who had had children together and married couples." on Template:Character/doc with the following excerpt (inside the scrollbox):

Additions to the partners field should meet at least one of the following criteria:
- Individuals defined as spouses, fiancés, or life partners.
- Individuals defined or described as "lovers" or "paramours," or defined as "partners" in a romantic context not solely relying on a business relationship.
- Individuals defined as a "boyfriend," "girlfriend," or shown/described in an in-universe context as in a non-fling relationship that would fall under the definition of "significant other."
- Individuals defined as co-parenting a child as part of the same family or familial-like unit can be denoted as a co-parent.
- Individuals defined as one of the above by additional context provided by a Star Wars creator, pursuant to the canon policy.
- All additions should be defined using {{C}}, denoting the in-universe terminology used to define the relationship.
- Examples:
  - Spouses/Fiancés:
    - Example #1:
      - Padmé Amidala (wife)
      - Anakin Skywalker (husband)
      - Defined as married in the prequel trilogy.
    - Example #2:
      - Beesar Tal-Apurna (wife)
      - Teemank (wife)
      - Defined as married in The High Republic: Trail of Shadows 4.
    - Example #3:
      - Crix Madine (fiancé)
      - Karreio (fiancé)
      - Defined as fiancés by Darksaber.
    - Individuals should be denoted by (husband), (wife), (spouse), (fiancé), (partner), and/or other in-universe terminology used to define characters' relationships to each other.
  - Partners/lovers:
    - Example #1:
      - Quinlan Vos (lover)
      - Asajj Ventress (lover)
      - Defined as lovers in Dark Disciple.
    - Example #2:
      - Thirteenth Sister (lover)
      - Tualon Yaluna (lover)
      - Defined as lovers in Inquisitor: Rise of the Red Blade.
    - Example #3:
      - Fel Ix (partner)
      - Ferize (partner)
      - Er Dal (partner)
      - Defined as partners in The High Republic: Path of Deceit and other sources. Due to the specific nature of Kessarine gender dynamics, each individual in the relationship refers to the other two as their fellow partners, whom they are forming a family with in a relationship.
    - Example #4:
      - Rhee (partner)
      - Eron (partner)
      - Defined as in an established, loving relationship as a romantic couple by Wil Wheaton.
    - Individuals should be denoted by the in-universe terminology used to define their relationship, including terms such as (lover), (boyfriend), (girlfriend), (partner), or otherwise.
    - Individuals whose relationship was further defined by a Star Wars creator pursuant to the pursuant to the canon policy may list their relationship in the infobox with the best fitting descriptor applied.
  - Significant others
    - Example #1:
      - Ariole Yu (boyfriend)
      - Just Lucky (boyfriend)
      - Defined as in a committed relationship in Star Wars: Doctor Aphra, at one point serious enough for Just Lucky to propose to his boyfriend.
    - Example #2:
      - Yana Ro (girlfriend)
      - Kor Plouth (girlfriend)
      - Defined as in a committed relationship of several years in The High Republic: Path of Deceit.
    - Example #3:
      - Kantam Sy (lover)
      - Aytar (lover)
      - Defined as a relatively short relationship, but also a serious one that prompted Sy's leaving of the Jedi Order and in which the pair lived together, in The High Republic: Midnight Horizon.
    - Example #4:
      - Leia Organa (girlfriend)
      - Kier Domadi (boyfriend)
      - Defined as each other's first serious romantic relationship—spanning for roughly a year—in Leia, Princess of Alderaan.
    - Example #5:
      - Borgin Kaa (boyfriend)
      - Linara (girlfriend)
      - Defined as boyfriend/girlfriend and cohabitating in Aftermath.
    - Example #6:
      - Qui-Gon Jinn (partner)
      - Unidentified individual (Qui-Gon Jinn) (partner)
      - Defined by Claudia Gray in an interview as a serious romantic relationship lasting for a period of time that fundamentally affected Qui-Gon Jinn's worldview.
    - Individuals should be denoted by the appropriate descriptor using {{C}} when they are described in-universe as having been in a romantic relationship that is not a fling, one-night stand, or a relationship explicitly described as similar to either.
  - Co-parents
    - Example #1:
      - Hamato Xiono (co-parent)
      - Kazuda Xiono's mother (co-parent)
      - Defined by Kazuda Xiono's Databank entry as co-parents raising him within the Xiono family.
    - Example #2:
      - Phel and Sana Starros' father (co-parent)
      - Jorinda (co-parent)
      - Defined by Sana Starros 1 as having raised their children Phel and Sana Starros together.
    - Individuals should be denoted by (co-parent) when they are described in-universe as having raised a child together as part of the same family. This does not necessarily apply to all physical unions that result in a child or all intimate partners of a character but rather when two characters maintain a prolonged relationship with each other within a family, clan, or other familial-like unit to raise their biological or adopted child.
Examples of instances that would not be in the infobox, but rather in the article's prose:
- Individuals explicitly described as engaging in a one-night stand or fling.
  - Example: Elzar Mann and Samera Ra-oon developed a brief romantic relationship in The High Republic: The Rising Storm, described in-universe as not a serious relationship and a fling.
- Non-reciprocated crushes and attractions.
  - Example: An Imperial nurse was romantically obsessed with and stalked Darth Vader in Vader - Dark Visions 3, though he displayed no interest in her and ultimately killed her.
- Reciprocated crushes and attractions that do not result in the characters engaging in any form of relationship.
  - Example: Obi-Wan Kenobi and Satine Kryze—in various sources—fell in love with each other and the former was willing to leave the Jedi Order for her. However, neither began a relationship despite their attractions for any length of time.
- Relationships that span a particularly short period of time—such as less than a week.
  - Example: Svi'no Atchapat and Tivbak are described in The High Republic: Midnight Horizon as having dated for "like ten minutes," rendering their relationship extremely brief.
- Relationships described by the Star Wars contributor of the relevant material as explicitly platonic in nature.
  - Example: Padmé Amidala and Sabé per E. K. Johnston in an interview.
- Relationships that are created by individuals as part of a ruse for infiltration, disguise, or otherwise unless sources describe the individuals as entering into a relationship that is not part of their created facade.
  - Example: Colvett Valeria and Obi-Wan Kenobi briefly pretended to be a couple to fool Imperials and those in Jabba's Palace in LEGO Star Wars Summer Vacation.
Examples of instances that may be in the infobox on a case-by-case basis alongside their inclusion in the article's prose, but may be challenged:
- Relationships that span a short period of time.
- Relationships described in-universe as the character not considering them "serious" or similar.

Alternatively, if the above is deemed to much to include on the documentation page itself, the current text could be replaced with the text "Additions to the partners field should meet at least one of the criteria defined on this page." with "on this page" linking to a separate page containing the above text (again, what's inside the scrollbox).

To clarify, a "Support Adding to Documentation" vote is in favor of including Spooky's write-up in the Character template's documentation wholesale. A "Support Adding Link to Documentation" vote is in favor of putting Spooky's write-up on a separate page, then including a link to that page on the Character template's documentation page. An "Oppose" vote is in against adding Spooky's write-up (be it in its current form or whatsoever).

To further clarify, this is NOT another vote on whether or not to keep the field—that will come another time.

Support Adding to Documentation

Support Adding Link to Documentation

- Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm pretty lukewarm on the field itself. But if we're going to have it, we by far should have thorough documentation for it while it's here/until it is gone. But it will probably end up staying (due to that last vote), so we definitely need some guidelines for it.—spookywilloww^talk 22:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
This provides a clear set of guidelines for the field that will allow us to hopefully avoid the vast majority of arguements over what should and shouldn't be included. Excellent work as always, spooky. Ayrehead02 (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm glad Vader and the nurse is an explicit example of what NOT to do. Rsand 30 (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Wow, huge thanks to spooky for putting this together. This is wonderful and all makes perfect sense to me Panther436 (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Per Spookywiloww ThrawnChiss7 ^{Assembly Cupola} 00:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Bonzane10 (holonet) 05:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Really thorough and cohesive stuff! I might consider using these guidelines elsewhere as well. SorcererSupreme21 (talk) 06:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Imperators II^(Talk) 07:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 07:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
OOM 224 (he/him) 08:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Sanathestarr (talk) 09:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Zed42 (talk) 11:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
NanoLuuke^{Cloning Facility} 11:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Rakhsh (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Per Rsand Fan26 (Talk) 18:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
CometSmudge (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Per Rsand, heh. I would note "fiancé" should maybe link to marriage unless engagement or betrothal specifically gets its own page. "Lover" could be linked to reproduction as well, even though it might be a little blunt. SHCosmos (He/Him ✦ Talk) 04:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
I can't believe this needs to be said, but love =/= reproduction! Imperators II^(Talk) 06:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Wok142 (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Cade Calrayn 19:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

If/when this passes, should be noted to have a bot remove the old usage comment from the field from where it remains as it won't apply after, if supported.—spookywilloww^talk 22:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
One thing confuse me a little, why is the vote split between adding the content to the documentation itself versus on another page, which seems to be the preferred path for Thannus and spooky. What is exactly the point in that distinction, as I fail to note any real argumentation in favor or disfavor of one use versus another (except for "is deemed to[o] much to include") in the SH or CT... But as I wrote this and I initially though to prefer for this to be directly added to the documentation itself, I also realize it is easier to (admin) protect the content of the guideline (or even address talk points) if it's on a separate page. NanoLuuke^{Cloning Facility} 11:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- It still technically counts as documentation so there is potential for someone to believe it belongs on the main page, but it's per your point regarding protecting the content and also ensuring the documentation page is not bloated. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)