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 02:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:Gender and pronouns fields in infoboxes
Since gender and pronouns aren't physical properties, they shouldn't go under the "Physical description" section where they currently are. For reference, I have included a character infobox here and will keep referring to it, but the changes I'm talking about can involve both character infoboxes and infoboxes for real-life individuals.
The suggestions that have come up so far are:
- The gender and pronoun fields can be moved directly under the name field and directly above the "Biographical information" section, similar to the LGBTQIA+ wiki's infoboxes.
- OR, the gender and pronoun fields can be moved to within the "Biographical information" section.
- OR, rename the "Physical description" section—what would be a better name though?
By editing the code on Template:Character, the display would be changed site-wide without necessitating edits to any article using the template. Follow-up bot runs could then switch the order of the fields across the wiki accordingly. Where needed, the order of corresponding references could then be fixed whenever editors come across an affected article, particularly if it is a status article, but functionally this would not be required.
What do we all think? OOM 224 (he/him) 17:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
- What about renaming the field "description?" VergenceScatter (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- This idea makes sense to me. I think renaming Physical description would be the best call in this case, as it widens the scope of what is being described. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 17:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- Per Vergence and Braha'tok. Option 2 is also fine, but I don't like option 1 for the exact reason that those two fields wouldn't be under any subsection. 01miki10 Open comlink 17:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm also leaning toward option #3. Vergence's suggestion to rename it "description" sound good to me. Or maybe "descriptive information" to echo other subsection names.
Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- "Descriptive information" works best IMO, yeah. Cade
Calrayn 18:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 22:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oooo I like that one Cade. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 22:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- "Descriptive information" works best IMO, yeah. Cade
- I like renaming it. I don't think it should be moved since I'm used to it being underneath the "species" field, though that's purely a stylistic thing. Rsand 30 (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- Renaming it. Rakhsh (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- Renaming the field to "Descriptive information" sounds good to me. Imperators II(Talk) 06:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- Slay, thanks everyone! Forum:CT:Renaming "Physical description" to "Descriptive information" in character infoboxes is now up! OOM 224 (he/him) 08:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
