Forum:SH:Affiliation field usage

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. —spookywillowwtalk 14:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:Affiliation field usage

Hi friends,

This is something that's come up quite a few times in Discord; forwarding so we can eventually put something in the IU LG. It's also tangentially related to the BH affiliations SH also up, but in a different strand.

Essentially, what Cade's been running into a lot recently is that say there's an article like shuttle or transport. Probably hundreds of in-universe groups have used a shuttle or a transport. Does that make shuttles affiliated with that group? Does a code cylinder being used by one individual in a group mean it's affiliated with all of these?

Now, I'd say most people, especially when writing an article for status, don't include something in affiliations unless, like, the source material is like "this ship class was widely used by the Republic" or "it was made for the Republic" or it is somehow otherwise abundantly clear it's affiliated with an organization or group rather than a one-off usage; or at least, used a few times or for something significant. But it does, honestly, keep getting re-added by people. I'm proposing that we formally put into the "Infobox" section that the "affiliations" field should not be used for limited or one-off usages by groups, but rather when there's a clear affiliation presented by canonical material.

Kinda applies to food too. I mean, if one of a group's individuals drinks alcohol, does that mean we have to list the several hundred groups in that affiliation field? I'd argue not personally. It's usually very clear canonically if something is actually affiliated with a diner/restauraunt/whathaveyou... like, the Dex's Diner dishes from Legends or the Galaxy's Edge food being served at their specific location. So really this kinda applies to all location (because buying one drink from a cantina doesn't make a group affiliated with it), vehicle, spacecraft (subcategory of vehicle), and object (includes technology) infoboxes.

Actual affiliations would definitely not be removed or affected in any way, to be clear. Just having the authority to easily nuke the things such as the edit linked above where it's like...they're not really (yet canonically proven to be) actually affiliated with these groups. But putting it in policy can help have something to point to, rather than just having to resort to either flat reverting without cause or getting into repeat SH-discussions.

(spitballing potential wording below, echoing other SH)

"The "Affiliations" field of all infoboxes except for character infoboxes, individual ship and vehicle infoboxes, and droid series infoboxes should be limited to explicitly stated affiliations unless the article's subject was otherwise created for, widely-used by, or culturally significant to the organization or group in question."

—spookywillowwtalk 22:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: tweaked draft wording slightly per Cade's suggestion.—spookywillowwtalk 15:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Yes please. OOM 224 22:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Absolutely yes. Wok142 (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes. But are you sure? I mean, really sure you don't want to list every single individual who ever used a blaster as an affiliation? - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 01:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
  • God yes. Formalizing this as policy so we can point to it when we have to revert, yes please. A single usage by a group does not an affiliation make; just because a one-off droid or vehicle was used by a group doesn't mean the entire model is affiliated with the group. Droid models should also be included in this. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 02:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Hm yeah, agreed. Now musing over it, it almost seems like all infoboxes save for character infoboxes (character, deity, droid) would be the best way to have this apply. Of course, those three could/perhaps should have their own clause (more along the lines of Bonzane's SH), but individuals can be a bit of a diff ball game than usable entities.—spookywillowwtalk 03:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
      • I'd group the individual-starship (and future individual-vehicle) infoboxes with those as well, as they're individuals and affiliations are 1-1 relationships. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 03:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes. Time to finally stop the "Affiliations" field abuse once and for all...until another issue rises in the future. Bonzane10 Bonzane10-Sig 06:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Support. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 11:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Support ThePedantry (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)