Forum:SH:Bounty hunting is a complicated profession...not really

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. —spookywilloww^talk 00:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

---

I've written a draft CT below based on pretty recent discussion on Discord about the abuse of the "Affiliations" field. If everything goes well, the draft will then go to CT. Any suggestions and tweaks are welcome! Bonzane10 10:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The following is a draft:

I'm proposing that we add the following policy as the sixth bullet point under the "Affiliations" (fifth) bullet point in the infobox section of Wookieepedia:Layout Guide/In-universe:

"Organizations and groups should not be listed under the "Affiliations" field of infoboxes if the article's subject only had a temporary business relation, such as the clients of bounty hunters and mercenaries."

This is done due to the fact that, while not as common anymore, the issue still rise from time to time where editors (typically anons) would list organizations/groups under the "Affiliations" field along with the caption tag "as mercenary" or something along those lines, despite it being a temporary business relation. With this policy, it'll minimize infobox bloat and also provide a more consistent practice in the long run.

Discussions

• Agreed, though perhaps (?) an exception for if reference material explicitly labels an individual's affiliation as per a group would be in order. As in, may appear from just the originating visual media that it was a temp relationship, but then the reference book as an "Affiliations" field that explicitly lists out a character's affies, such as Star Wars Encyclopedia: The Comprehensive Guide to the Star Wars Galaxy. Otherwise yeah entirely; the field is bloated and abused for every little odd job.—spookywilloww^talk 17:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
  • So something like "Organizations and groups should not be listed under the "Affiliations" field of infoboxes if the article's subject only had a temporary business relation, such as the clients of bounty hunters and mercenaries; unless the affiliation is explicitly stated." Bonzane10 18:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Yeah something like that. Just musing that the super explicit ones can be their way of informing us its an actual affiliation when its formatted like "Affiliation: XX" in books so seems notable enough to not ignore, if its specifically that way in material.—spookywilloww^talk 18:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
      • "Organizations and groups should not be listed under the "Affiliations" field of infoboxes if the article's subject only had a temporary business relation, such as the clients of bounty hunters and mercenaries; unless the affiliation is explicitly stated, such as the "Affiliations" section in the Databank and other reference materials." Bonzane10 19:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
        • Works for me.—spookywilloww^talk 19:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• I've noticed some overzealous edits in this area. Agree that without specific affiliation being pointed to in a source, a one-time job or something for a client is not enough to warrant an inclusion. Wok142 (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• I got a quote from Progressive Insurance once, that doesn't make me affiliated with them? Totally agree with this. Can you imagine how many we'd have to list for Boba Fett alone if we counted every employer who's hired him as an affiliation? - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 19:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)