Forums
Guides
Features
Media
Zelda Wiki
Patreon
    • Discussion
    Gender v. Pronouns
    • The situation you're referring to is already perfectly handled, under the "Design" heading on Fi's page it says in game she is referred to by she/her pronouns and cites a source of dialogue on that.

      The question "How do I refer to this character in every day conversation?" is already answered there.

      There's no need to change the entire wiki based on a situation that is handled already especially when it's such a controversial/politically heated one.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Zeldan ().

    • This thread will remain open, provided the discussion contained within remain civil and without any rule breaking (ie: flaming, trolling, spam, etc.)

      Please bear in mind, from here on out, there will be zero tolerance for any hostility in this thread, and it will be locked on the spot, and infractions handed out if it happens again.

      We are all a community, please respect each other in these debates.

      Thanks!

      This isn't in relation to anything happening currently, I just want to be clear, given what has previously happened in this thread!
    • As a frequent user of the Zelda Wiki, I too would like to voice some concerns over these changes.

      First of all, if these changes have been made in an attempt to accurately define characters by the gender they identify as, then already the presumptions and inaccuracies Tony wished to avoid have been committed. As has been previously mentioned somewhere in the two topics in which this change has been addressed, Fi is entirely genderless. By defining her in the infobox as "she", while accurate to the games that have assigned her a pronoun, it leads to a presumption that Fi is gendered. In reality, Aonuma has said that Fi simply does not have a gender. By defining her in the infobox we create a presumption that is not only potentially presumptuous of her true identity, something Tony wished to avoid, but in the first place does not accurate determine her identity.

      I think the topic of Sheik also illustrates well that this change does not accurately represent her identity. As it stands now, we're defining her by "pronouns" that she has received throughout the series, making a clear distinction that, while referred to as "she" in later games, she was referred to as "he" in Ocarina. In Ocarina, Sheik's gender is clearly assumed by Ruto, as it is by players and the Official Nintendo's Players Guide. In the later's case, this was likely done to protect Sheik's identity, and one of the biggest plot twists in the game. However, this again does not accurately represent the identity of Sheik. The great debate about Sheik's gender identity clearly still rages to this day, but the long and the short of it in this context is; we can not use assumptions made by Ruto and a likely ruse by the ONPG to define her identity. If the truth of the matter was that Zelda identified herself as female, regardless of her disguise or the effects thereof, then by defining her on the wiki by potentially-misassociated pronouns, the Zelda Wiki team is openly misinforming their readers.

      At the end of the day, the only way that this change will truly achieve it's goal of accurately defining these characters by the identities that they've chosen for themselves, is if they use pronouns used by the characters themselves, and genders attributed to them by developers. If a character does not define themselves, we should not be attempting to define them at all.

      Now, on a personal note, I think the change was highly unnecessary. The concept of gender identity is a very important topic in today's youth cultures, however it has never been a topic that has concerned the Zelda series. As such, in most situations the apparent sex or presumed gender is in all likelihood representative of the character's identity, ie Link and Ganon as males, Zelda, Midna, and Malon as females. Where there are complications, such as in the cases of Sheik and Fi, of course I believe that they should be detailed in their respective articles. Otherwise, this is a change motivated by a subject and topic that has never been relevant to the series, and in an attempt to get complicated has only caused further problems, issues, and inaccuracies, not the least of which being the severe backlash that was clearly caused by it.

      Regardless of what is ultimately decided, I think what's most important at this stage is a second vote. It's clear that the first vote was not only handled in a way that the community was not aware of, but done impromptu and with little structure. From the previous topic, it seems as if the entire decision was discussed among less than a dozen people, and a decision was made without a solid consensus either way, with a final tally that many have called into question. A more serious vote should be made public and clear to both members of the community here and to readers of the wiki; bearing in mind that, if it turns out that reader's don't care either way, it might be best to do away with this part of the infobox altogether.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by AsterBTT ().

    • Zeldan wrote:

      The situation you're referring to is already perfectly handled, under the "Design" heading on Fi's page it says in game she is referred to by she/her pronouns and cites a source of dialogue on that.

      The question "How do I refer to this character in every day conversation?" is already answered there.

      There's no need to change the entire wiki based on a situation that is handled already especially when it's such a controversial/politically heated one.
      No you're not getting my point. The Design section is further down the page, so it is not immediately seen. A lot of people look to the infobox to get very quick information without reading the rest or all of the page.
    • AsterBTT wrote:

      Regardless of what is ultimately decided, I think what's most important at this stage is a second vote. It's clear that the first vote was not only handled in a way that the community was not aware of, but done impromptu and with little structure. From the previous topic, it seems as if the entire decision was discussed among less than a dozen people, and a decision was made without a solid consensus either way, with a final tally that many have called into question. A more serious vote should be made public and clear to both members of the community here and to readers of the wiki; bearing in mind that, if it turns out that reader's don't care either way, it might be best to do away with this part of the infobox altogether.
      I agree 100% with your post, especially the bit I've quoted. That "poll" really bothered me for numerous reasons.

      First, I hadn't seen or heard about any polls shown on the front page of the Wiki itself - I've only seen the thread here. Was there a poll on Zelda Wiki? Was there at least a link to the thread on ZU sitting on the front page of Zelda Wiki? If the answer to both previous questions was "no", then we're already off to a bad start. One shouldn't assume that the average user of a wiki will also frequent an associated forum, so I don't understand the rationale behind conducting a poll in this manner.

      Even the thread title, "Shift in Focus: Gender v. Pronouns", wasn't 100% indicative that a poll was going on. Even if one were interested in voting, they might not have realized that such a poll existed in that thread. It may seem unnecessary, but sometimes just throwing the word "Poll" into a thread title can be very helpful.

      So as far as I know, the average Zelda Wiki user already had a limited chance of being exposed to the poll. To make matters worse, the poll was conducted at a time of radio silence in the Zelda series. There isn't much in the way of Breath of the Wild news, or any Zelda news for that matter. I'd imagine that fans are less likely to visit the Wiki when there's a dry period in Zelda stories, so if I were the one creating the poll I'd have left it open for a lot longer than 2 weeks to ensure maximum exposure.

      Finally, the way the poll ended really threw me off. There's no way there was a "vocal majority in favor" if one were reading every reply. I saw were both sides being equally vocal, and whether it was a 5 to 4 vote, a 4 to 5 vote, or anything remotely similar, I never would've proceeded with such a dramatic change to the Wiki without hearing more of both sides and expanding knowledge of the poll to other users.

      What happened at the end of the poll reminded me of an incident in Nevada back in May. Various Democrats were supposed to have a debate on the rules of the Democratic Convention - specifically, whether or not certain new rules were to be implemented. They didn't do the debate, and Bernie Sanders supporters were unhappy. In response, Democratic Party Chair Roberta Lange pretended to do a voice vote to ask whether or not everyone supported the implementation of these new rules. When she called for all those in favor to say, "aye", the aye's were quite loud. When she called for all those who opposed, the "no" calls were audibly much louder. Despite this, she declared that those in favor had won and that the new rules had passed.

      Later on, that same woman did a voice call asking if the convention should convene. The aye's were okay. The no's were super loud. She hilariously declared that the ayes won, thus adjourning the convention to the dismay of the attendees.
      [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
      [FONT="Garamond"]Think you know everything there is to know about Princess Zelda?
      Think again.[/FONT]

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Teekay ().

    • Midoro wrote:

      No you're not getting my point. The Design section is further down the page, so it is not immediately seen. A lot of people look to the infobox to get very quick information without reading the rest or all of the page.
      Sorry I was actually replying to Sólsetur there in particular, people do look to the infobox to get very quick information without reading the rest of the page, you're right. Although it is highly debatable here currently, I do not think most people consider pronouns to be something needs to be "immediately seen" especially for a video game.

      There is no confusion caused by not having the pronoun there and for people who do desire to look they can see from both the discussion point and the text on the page itself which refers to Fi as She/her what the correct pronoun to use is.

      There is however confusion and political motivation behind the debate surrounding this which I really don't think should be forced on a game that doesn't even attempt to discuss those ideologies within the game world.
    • When I look at a character page on a wiki, I would expect to find a "gender" field on character pages, for characters for which it is known. I think "gender" is the more relevant field for the kinds of information people would expect to find.

      Since there is really only a single relevant edge-case for "pronouns" (being Fi, since Sheik had been satisfactorily handled), I do not think it is appropriate to have a "pronouns" field in the infobox. For the single edge-case, we can easily add a wiki note to the gender field (or even an entire "Gender" section to Fi's page, like Sheik, if there's enough content). If a gender/personal pronoun distinction were a significant part of the Zelda franchise I think including both in the infobox would make sense. However, we instead have zero confirmed instances of characters having different pronouns from their gender (Sheik is a disguise, and Fi is a difference between the Japanese creator and the English translators).


      The original thread also brings up some other cases (Volvagia and Calamity Ganon), but I wouldn't really call those relevant cases (particularly since Calamity Ganon is currently pre-release information, and Volvagia is simply a retcon). Regardless, these are cases that can easily be handled by using wiki notes, or prose if necessary.

      One significant issue I can find with using pronouns is that it's a very English-focused attribute. While we are an English language wiki, and so prioritize English language media (specifically American English), not every single piece of Zelda media we cover has been released in English. It would be inaccurate to label characters who had not appeared in media that has been released in English as using any particular set of English pronouns because that remains unconfirmed, but many do have confirmed genders. We also shouldn't completely ignore other translations; if Fi were to be referred to with personal pronouns other than feminine pronouns in German, for example, I think that is something we should note (even if it's only in a wiki note or trivia while we have the English case as the primary text).



      On a completely different note, if we do keep a "pronouns" field in the infobox, I think it should be called "Personal pronouns", for technical accuracy. It would also be helpful to then link that term to the Wikipedia article. In fact, it might even make more sense to label it English personal pronouns, unless we decide to use the grammatical gender of the pronouns ("masculine", "feminine", "neuter", etc.) rather than the specific English cases ("he/him", "she/her", "it", etc.), which might actually be better since it is more general (including possessive personal pronouns, etc.).

      There is also the compromise solution of calling the section "grammatical gender", but I imagine everyone would hate that option (thus why it's a compromise). Also, the distinction from gender identity might not be clear (although it probably wouldn't matter, since people who don't understand the difference probably don't really care that much about the difference).
    • Made an account so I can contribute in some manner.

      Pronouns would only be useful for a MINORITY of characters. Not like "the gay population of America" minority, because that is pretty large, I'm talking about 5 out of a 1000 sized minority. Yes, for characters such as Fi whose gender is ambiguous, it might be a good idea to go along the route of pronouns, but not from the other 98% of Zelda characters such as Rurau, or that one Goron shopkeeper as they are male, and NOTHING disputes it otherwise. Almost all Zelda characters have an easy to identify gender, why should we bother to force their pages for pronouns when only 5 characters don't have an easy to identify gender?

      In conclusion:
      Pronouns on Fi's page, good idea.
      Pronouns on everyone elses: bad idea.
    • ScottishDrunkard I agree with what you're saying but I think it's a better idea to leave the details on Fi's page in under the design or trivia headings.

      SnorlaxMonsters post on the old version of Sheiks page (Sheik - Zelda Wiki) is a great example. When it says "Female (disguised as male)" that clears up any and all confusion immediately.

      I also agree with SnowlaxMonster saying

      SnorlaxMonster wrote:

      If a gender/personal pronoun distinction were a significant part of the Zelda franchise I think including both in the infobox would make sense.


      However, we instead have zero confirmed instances of characters having different pronouns from their gender (Sheik is a disguise, and Fi is a difference between the Japanese creator and the English translators).

      Even if there was a single real instance of someone having different pronouns I still think it would make more sense to have that localised on their own page such as Fi's is currently as well as with Sheiks disguise. If it becomes a main talking point within the Zelda universe going forward then it would make sense to apply it throughout.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Zeldan ().

    • Zeldan wrote:

      ScottishDrunkard I agree with what you're saying but I think it's a better idea to leave the details on Fi's page in under the design or trivia headings.

      SnorlaxMonsters post on the old version of Sheiks page (Sheik - Zelda Wiki) is a great example. When it says "Female (disguised as male)" that clears up any and all confusion immediately.
      Eh, whatever floats your boat. Both of our views work, both probably won't [CENSORED] off everyone.
    • Midoro wrote:

      Zeldan wrote:

      ScottishDrunkard I agree with what you're saying but I think it's a better idea to leave the details on Fi's page in under the design or trivia headings.
      It wouldn't work the way you're saying. The content would still say "She is the humanoid representation of the Goddess Sword."

      I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this but what you quoted sounds absolutely fine? All I was replying to with ScottishDrunkard is the idea that pronouns be left on Fi's page and removed on all others but I don't think it's even needed on Fi's page because the information is already there under details as well as being apparently on the page (as well as ingame). Having what you quoted somewhere is a good idea and not against anything I imagined.
    • There is an option on wiki pages where certain rows in infoboxes can simply not show up if not filled in. With that being said, we can keep the gender row open for characters that we DO know what their gender is (ex, Link, Zelda, Midna, etc.) while we leave the pronouns invisible until filled in for pages like the Kikwi's, Fi, or other characters.

      Ex:

      Link:
      Gender: Male
      Pronoun:

      Fi:
      Gender: Genderless
      Pronoun: She/her

      This would have been a completely easier situation and wouldn't have started any fighting in the first place. Least I would have believed that.

      I also agree with whatever ScottishDrunkard has said. And we should have had a poll both on the wiki and on Zelda Universe (extending it to social media) to bring more thoughts and opinions to the table.
    • Izagar wrote:

      There is an option on wiki pages where certain rows in infoboxes can simply not show up if not filled in. With that being said, we can keep the gender row open for characters that we DO know what their gender is (ex, Link, Zelda, Midna, etc.) while we leave the pronouns invisible until filled in for pages like the Kikwi's, Fi, or other characters.

      Ex:

      Link:
      Gender: Male
      Pronoun:

      Fi:
      Gender: Genderless
      Pronoun: She/her

      This would have been a completely easier situation and wouldn't have started any fighting in the first place. Least I would have believed that.

      I also agree with whatever ScottishDrunkard has said. And we should have had a poll both on the wiki and on Zelda Universe (extending it to social media) to bring more thoughts and opinions to the table.
      The main problem I have with this is that it sets a standard that doesn't need to be in the Zelda universe yet, if and when gender identity/personal pronouns becomes a part of the Zelda narrative then including what you said would be a good idea.

      It's been said before and I mentioned it too earlier in the thread but the Fi page already does a good job of explaining her gender and pronoun usage in the detail section which for a sword spirit and given the context is more than enough.

      I think the reason putting the field there to appease people on "some pages" is an issue because it promotes it over better alternatives when it really doesn't have a place in the Zelda universe currently (not that it can't be debated in fandom, anything goes), for example the old Sheik page (Sheik - Zelda Wiki) the line "Female (disguised as male)" was used which is accurate and clear and not confusing.

      Since the pronoun thing came about it's currently "He/him (OoT)" and "She/her (SSBM, SSBB, SSB4, HW)" and while correct it creates confusion that isn't needed, they didn't change gender, they didn't identify differently the only reason they were ever referred to as "He/him" is because she was disguising herself.

      Is it really worth using a video game universe and a great unbiased wiki to push a political ideology? I really don't think so, all this has done is harm this community and the reputation of the wiki which is by far the best Zelda resource out there.
    • I don't really think that the intention was to "promote a political ideology", just, the people who created the change genuinely thought that it was a better way to describe the characters.

      I don't really have any thoughts on the other parts. I'm not an avid wiki reader; I just feel the constant labeling of this as people trying push their agenda onto other people is false. There are far better ways to do that than altering a Zelda Wiki.
    • Sólsetur wrote:

      I don't really think that the intention was to "promote a political ideology", just, the people who created the change genuinely thought that it was a better way to describe the characters.

      I don't really have any thoughts on the other parts. I'm not an avid wiki reader; I just feel the constant labeling of this as people trying push their agenda onto other people is false. There are far better ways to do that than altering a Zelda Wiki.
      Fair enough, that is presumptuous of me and others but given the general atmosphere on such topics it is controversial without a doubt and many people including me truly can't see why it was necessary or why people thought it would be a good idea so they (including me) just wrongly presume it's because the people involved wanted to promote that topic in general.
    • Zeldan wrote:

      Izagar wrote:

      (...)
      This would have been a completely easier situation and wouldn't have started any fighting in the first place. Least I would have believed that.

      I also agree with whatever ScottishDrunkard has said. And we should have had a poll both on the wiki and on Zelda Universe (extending it to social media) to bring more thoughts and opinions to the table.
      (...)
      Is it really worth using a video game universe and a great unbiased wiki to push a political ideology? I really don't think so, all this has done is harm this community and the reputation of the wiki which is by far the best Zelda resource out there.
      I think it's a good idea to have for the future. It can be implemented right now and just not appear until we needed to add it to certain pages. Again, there is a way to hide it if it's not filled in and it shouldn't be needed to be filled in unless it's on pages like for Fi.

      You can fix this simply by inserting this into templates:

      Source Code

      1. {{#if:{{{pronoun|}}}|
      2. ! Age
      3. {{!}} {{{pronoun}}}}}
      (I thank Moydow of StrategyWiki for pointing this code above)

      I'm for siding with people who want genders > pronouns while at the same time adding more information to an info box just to help with quick and easy access.
    • Izagar wrote:

      Zeldan wrote:

      Izagar wrote:

      (...)
      This would have been a completely easier situation and wouldn't have started any fighting in the first place. Least I would have believed that.

      I also agree with whatever ScottishDrunkard has said. And we should have had a poll both on the wiki and on Zelda Universe (extending it to social media) to bring more thoughts and opinions to the table.
      (...)Is it really worth using a video game universe and a great unbiased wiki to push a political ideology? I really don't think so, all this has done is harm this community and the reputation of the wiki which is by far the best Zelda resource out there.
      I think it's a good idea to have for the future. It can be implemented right now and just not appear until we needed to add it to certain pages. Again, there is a way to hide it if it's not filled in and it shouldn't be needed to be filled in unless it's on pages like for Fi.
      Like I said in my last post I really don't see any benefit to adding it right now even for Fi because the Fi page already has it handled perfectly by using the correct pronouns in the article itself as well as listing specifics under the details heading.

      You showed how easy it was to add another section on the infobox when needed so there is absolutely no reason for this to be added until gender identity and pronouns are a real part of the Zelda universe, adding it now has absolutely no benefits and already clearly has negatives such as the controversy and bringing down the quality of Sheiks page in particular. By adding it in before it is needed all it does is promote the use of it way before it is relevant. We have no reason to believe breath of the wild will include plot or characters that are anymore relevant to gender identity or pronouns than the ones we have now.
    • In my honest opinion this is a completely pointless and unnecessary change, and being frank, I feel like it's been done to cater or pander to certain demographic of people.
      I respect ideologies and all that, but this is giving a bad image, almost as if someone is trying to shove their ideologies on other people's faces and expect them to agree with them.

      I really have nothing much else to say about the matter. I will respect your decisions and all that, but this is simply my opinion and point of view.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by DeiStar ().