Forums
Guides
Features
Media
Zelda Wiki
Patreon
    • Discussion
    Gender v. Pronouns
    • I think people are talking too much about what they assume the motivations behind the change are; I really don't care about the motivations. What I care about is whether or not it is a good way to format pages. We could have a much more constructive discussion if people focused on that instead of making assumptions about the character of people who disagree with them.

      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.
      I would like to point out that this is how the template is currently implemented. You can still specify the gender parameter on pages and have it show up, and if you do not specify the pronouns parameter it won't show up. If we just changed Template:Missing Pronouns so the string it fills the pronouns parameter with is null or whitespace (a very easy change), the pronouns cell would no longer show up on any page that has them unspecified.
    • I'm in complete agreement with SnorlaxMonster regarding the topic of motivations. As far as I'm concerned, the motivation Tony had for suggesting the change was communicated clear as day in the original topic; an attempt to be clear and accurate regarding the character's identities. Anything beyond that is not only blind assumptions, but ultimately doesn't contribute to the conversation.

      I am heavily in favour of Izagar's suggestion to use Gender where it's known, and Pronouns where applicable, such as in the case of Fi or creatures with wholly ambiguous genders. I think it's proven important for Fi especially to make a distinction between how she's referred to and what her gender is, but for most character the distinction is unnecessary. This a good compromise that is not only most correct, but most relevant to the content of the infobox. In the case of Sheik specifically, I'm personally in favour of returning to "Gender: Female (Disguised as Male)", as that description is most accurate without being presumptive.

      At this point, I'm personally looking to the team in charge of the wiki for some idea of what might be done at this stage. There's a lot of ideas kicking around in this topic, but not much more than that. Many seem in favour of change or a vote to change, in one way or another.

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

    • In response to the people who think we should have both I just wanted to point out a few reasons why I don't think it's a good idea to have both and why we should just continue to stick with either gender or sex, borrowing some arguments from people in the thread so far who have said it better than I could.

      Currently I believe adding pronouns to any page would just be done to appease the people who wish for them to be added and as SnorlaxMonster said

      SnorlaxMonster wrote:

      What I care about is whether or not it is a good way to format pages.

      At the end of the day, this should be a discussion about what's best for the wiki, not about appeasing people or ideology or anything else.

      The main argument for pronouns being a benefit is that they clear up any confusion, with the two main examples being Sheik and Fi.


      In the case of Sheik, a lot of people already agree that having pronouns there is a mistake, listing the pronouns as "He/him (OoT)" and "She/her (SSBM, SSBB, SSB4, HW)" creates confusion and raises questions like "why did it change?" whereas simply returning to the previous page which had "Female (disguised as male)" explains the perhaps misleading appearance and any pronoun usage in the game without raising any other questions. Midoro also made a good point about this never being a case of gender identity or pronouns -

      Midoro wrote:

      Sheik never once refers to themselves by any pronoun. "He/him" was taken from a line said by Ruto where she calls Sheik a man, but the thing about Sheik is that they are very clearly disguising themselves to look like a man. Literally anyone can assume that Sheik is male based on their physique and choice of clothing. It doesn't mean that the character necessarily calls themselves a "he", or any pronoun for that matter because Sheik doesn't.
      So by listing pronouns for Sheik that were only used because of a disguise it not only creates confusion but in Tony's own words it is -

      Tony wrote:

      It's presumptive and inaccurate.

      As for Fi I not only think that it was already handled perfectly well by having a note about it under the detail heading, like SnorlaxMonster said

      SnorlaxMonster wrote:

      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).
      And again this also creates more confusion and more assumption not less on Fi's page like Asterbtt pointed out

      AsterBTT wrote:

      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.

      Honestly I think these points make it perfectly clear there is no benefit to the wiki so far as adding pronouns goes.

      And another point against adding them at all at this point is that it not only makes people over eager to add it like in the case of Sheik but like Tony said, at this point in time

      Tony wrote:

      It's still relatively novel in contemporary discourse
      The topic of pronouns is a controversial one currently and still heavily debated everywhere, we have no reason to bring that debate into the world of a video game and to the unbiased pages of a Wiki. I couldn't agree more when SnorlaxMonster said -

      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.

      If personal pronouns and gender identity become a significant part of the Zelda universe then this is something that should, without a doubt be added but until then all it does is lower the quality of the wiki, make people over-eager to add it to the infobox every time a pronoun is misused or different to what we might expect instead of using the detail heading or a gender heading which is where it is currently better suited.

      Sorry for the large wall of text with a lot of quotes, if I was a better writer I may have been able to condense it more but if anyone has any good arguments about why any of this isn't the case or why we should go to vote instead of discussing it properly and objectively I'd love to hear it.

      The post was edited 7 times, last by Zeldan: Minor edits, spacing ().

    • Per the topic of the original motivation of the change, here is a quote from the original proposal:

      Tony wrote:

      It's still relatively novel in contemporary discourse, but a person's pronouns don't have to match their gender identity.

      The real-life topic of gender identity has never been a topic in Zelda, and it is completely irrelevant to the situation with Sheik. Zelda disguising herself to conceal her identity has nothing to do with gender identity. If the intent was to be clear regarding the characters' identity, it fails miserably: it places the canonical word of the creators and the very logic of the situation below something one character in the game thinks. Even if viewed through the lens of gender identity, it's still a poor usage: it would say nothing at all about the actual gender identity of Sheik, but merely what that one character in the game assumed Sheik's gender identity was.

      There is really no need to note pronouns, especially given that you can see the pronouns that a character is referred to as in the article itself. The only time it would relevant to note would be in cases like Volvagia.

      Simply stating "Gender" is appropriate and accurate. In the case of Fi and Sheik, their cases can be noted under "Gender". I forget the term for it—the code that causes a tooltip to appear when you hover over text—but that can be used for Fi and Sheik—for example, stating Fi as "Genderless" with the tooltip "referred to with female pronouns" and Sheik as "Female" with the tooltip "disguised as male".

      Regardless of why the change was suggested and made, the priority of the wiki should be accurate information. And in the cases of Sheik and Fi, where this topic arose from, the change makes the wiki's information misleading. That should be the only reason why the change should be reverted.
    • ScottishDrunkard wrote:

      The thread's getting more and more quiet? It makes me worry that all of our requests, statements, criticisms and suggestions will fall on daf ears (if I'm using that saying right)
      I'm really hoping that the reason there hasn't staff feedback is that they are busy deciding amongst themselves on how to put this issue to rest.
      I'm also interested in knowing what's going to happen. The implementation of this policy was dependent on the poll results, but clearly the interpretation of those results have been put into question.
      [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
      [FONT="Garamond"]Think you know everything there is to know about Princess Zelda?
      Think again.[/FONT]
    • I continued to have faith, as those tagged as members of the "Wiki Team" responded and continued to contribute to the conversation. However, Tony has remained entirely silent and devoid of involvement in the proceeding discussions since the end of July, and while we've certainly discussed ideas, the various calls to action appear to have fallen on deaf ears.

      I know that the conversations here have occurred quickly, and I don't want to seem impatient. After all, it's only been four days since my first post here, and barely a week since this topic has been reopened by moderators (assuming of course that it was indeed closed at some point, as Zeldan's initial posts lead me to believe). It's likely, I think, that the team behind the wiki has been attempting to take action behind the scenes, or has meant to but haven't found time to get together and hash the issue out. I'm aware that all members here have their own lives, and contributions here are mostly a hobby.

      My concern will continue to be the truthfulness, or lack thereof, of the wiki. As it stands, the latter is called into question, and the longer the inaccuracies stand, the more people are misled or confused by presumptuous and inaccurate content, and the more frustrated members of the community that are invested in this wiki will become.

      Regardless of the outcome however, I would like to thank the members of the wiki team. This wiki is honestly one of the best out there. It's formatted beautifully, it looks amazing, and the galleries are incredibly extensive. I've been using this content for years, most recently in contributing to the Hyrule Warriors community on Reddit. Call this digression what you want, but I figured since I'm here, I'd thank the team for their work.

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

    • Cody wrote:

      As Ty said, things have become a lot more productive in here lately since it shifted from talking about pronoun politics to how to best implement accurate fields on the wiki. The thread isn't being ignored, we're just letting more discussion happen at the moment.
      The discussion has kind of died down on the last page or so since we started ignoring the political side of it, it looks like most people seem to have the same consensus that it wasn't a good change, without further input from people with opposing points of view I don't think much more is going to get discussed now.

      Any feedback or insights from yourself or others that are still waiting to make a decision or to chime in would be appreciated.
    • I didn't expect the quick response, so thanks to Ty and Cody. Again, the turnaround here has been pretty quick, so I didn't want to sound impatient, but I also don't want this to just fade into obscurity without some form of conclusion.

      Not to compare to other wikis, but at a quick glance a lot of the ones that I also use seem to not even use a Gender box. I remember that idea being brought up earlier as well, simply not having one. Considering that Gender lacks importance in the Zelda franchise, maybe it would be better to just not have the field? Of course, for certain characters like Fi and Sheik it would be pertinent to include a blurb about their idiosyncrasies, but considering the breadth of characters that we simply can't be sure of, from machines and beings devoid of gender to creatures and races with ambiguous or unspoken Genders, not including the field feels like another viable options.
    • ScottishDrunkard wrote:

      ScottishDrunkard wrote:

      It's been roughly 5 days since any discussion. At what point do we declare the thread, and in turn all of the gender politics we've been discussing the past weeks, dead?
      It can take time to discuss these things internally, the people that make the final decision might still be discussing it, I'd hope they aren't just going to ignore it with so many staff in this thread too but you never really know, all we can just wait a bit longer and see. At the very least I don't think the wiki has continued to be updated in regards to changing it to be all pronouns so that pause might be an indication they're still deciding what to do.

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

    • As someone who isn't a frequent editor at the Zelda Wiki (but participates in another wiki part of NIWA), I don't want to overstep my boundaries, but at the same time, I've been wondering something as I've read everyone's arguments: is it necessary to list a character's gender/pronoun/sex/whatever in the infobox in the first place? Whether a character's referred to as "he", "she", or "they" should be self-evident within the article as it describes the character: if the character does something notable, the article will naturally follow with "he does x" or whatever would be appropriate. Beyond that, is it so notable that it should be listed in the infobox? It's not like the information will be completely lost if it's removed from the infobox, as, again, the article will include the information throughout its body. It also sidesteps any confusion surrounding certain characters or any characters whose genders are unknown, as the articles (should) cover anything worth noting regarding their gender; if there's anything worthy of elaboration, a couple of lines on an infobox is not the place for it. From an editing perspective, it's also one less parameter to worry about when compiling each character's infobox, and it'd clean up a bit of redundancy. While it may be handy for characters whose genders are unobvious but clearly defined, the article would still use the necessary pronouns. Unless you're hellbent on writing around gendered pronouns, they're practically impossible to avoid when writing about a known individual; even the use of a singular they indicates something about the subject's gender.

      I've said my piece, but as I'm not a frequent editor here and my suggestion is probably too radical, feel free to pay me no mind, though I would at least like to hear someone's thoughts on why the field has been/should be included.
    • Reversinator wrote:

      As someone who isn't a frequent editor at the Zelda Wiki (but participates in another wiki part of NIWA), I don't want to overstep my boundaries, but at the same time, I've been wondering something as I've read everyone's arguments: is it necessary to list a character's gender/pronoun/sex/whatever in the infobox in the first place? Whether a character's referred to as "he", "she", or "they" should be self-evident within the article as it describes the character: if the character does something notable, the article will naturally follow with "he does x" or whatever would be appropriate. Beyond that, is it so notable that it should be listed in the infobox? It's not like the information will be completely lost if it's removed from the infobox, as, again, the article will include the information throughout its body. It also sidesteps any confusion surrounding certain characters or any characters whose genders are unknown, as the articles (should) cover anything worth noting regarding their gender; if there's anything worthy of elaboration, a couple of lines on an infobox is not the place for it. From an editing perspective, it's also one less parameter to worry about when compiling each character's infobox, and it'd clean up a bit of redundancy. While it may be handy for characters whose genders are unobvious but clearly defined, the article would still use the necessary pronouns. Unless you're hellbent on writing around gendered pronouns, they're practically impossible to avoid when writing about a known individual; even the use of a singular they indicates something about the subject's gender.

      I've said my piece, but as I'm not a frequent editor here and my suggestion is probably too radical, feel free to pay me no mind, though I would at least like to hear someone's thoughts on why the field has been/should be included.

      I think all those points have been talked about previously in the thread, almost everyone thinks something should be there so there's no confusion. It's just what really and so far most people seem to be in favour of just sex/gender and let a heading explain anything that's more indepth.
    • So, I've just been twidling my thumbs, waiting, and then it hit me. We don't wven need pronoun boxes, but still incorporate them into pages where deemed necessary? I'm unsure if someone already thought of this, but hear me out.

      On pages we'd have

      Fi
      Gender: None (uses Female pronouns)

      Sheik
      Gender: Female (disguised as male)

      Link
      Gender: Male

      Brackets people, we don't even need pronoun boxes if we are going to only use them if deemend necessary, we could just tack them onto brackets in the gender boxes! And on Sheiks page, seeing as they were "disguised as male" it'd seem obvious they would use the appropriate pronouns whilst disguised.
      I'd be happy, the internet would be happy, and people who wanted pronouns would be happy, to an extent.
    • ScottishDrunkard wrote:

      So, I've just been twidling my thumbs, waiting, and then it hit me. We don't wven need pronoun boxes, but still incorporate them into pages where deemed necessary? I'm unsure if someone already thought of this, but hear me out.

      On pages we'd have

      Fi
      Gender: None (uses Female pronouns)

      Sheik
      Gender: Female (disguised as male)

      Link
      Gender: Male

      Brackets people, we don't even need pronoun boxes if we are going to only use them if deemend necessary, we could just tack them onto brackets in the gender boxes! And on Sheiks page, seeing as they were "disguised as male" it'd seem obvious they would use the appropriate pronouns whilst disguised.
      I'd be happy, the internet would be happy, and people who wanted pronouns would be happy, to an extent.
      This is an idea I can get behind. We don't need to add any new boxes, just update the ones that were already there.
      TP>OoT>MM>TWW>SS>ALttP>TFH>ALBW>OoS>OoA>LoZ>ST>PH>TMC>FSA>AoL>LA>FS
      << BotW>>
      Incomplete Currently playing Completed