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):
|
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.
Contents
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.—spookywillowwtalk 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)
- NanoLuukeCloning 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.—spookywillowwtalk 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. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 11:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)