Forums
Guides
Features
Media
Zelda Wiki
Patreon
    • Discussion
    Gender v. Pronouns
    • ScottishDrunkard wrote:

      I'm unsure if someone already thought of this, but hear me out.
      Considering that this is precisely how things were before, I don't think it's as revolutionary of an idea as you're trying to sell it.

      I forgot to mention that the staff are indeed going to privately deliberate over this policy. However, I have to say that some of the solutions and opinions put forward are based around false information and assumptions into the nature of this policy. It's disappointing, but not surprising given the premise by which outside commentators have found themselves here.

      Stay tuned.
    • Tony wrote:

      Considering that this is precisely how things were before, I don't think it's as revolutionary of an idea as you're trying to sell it.
      I have no isea what you mean by that, but okay.

      Tony wrote:

      I forgot to mention that the staff are indeed going to privately deliberate over this policy.
      Good, but I hope it doesn't take to long. I become... irritable while waiting. I hope you resolve this soon.

      Tony wrote:

      However, I have to say that some of the solutions and opinions put forward are based around false information and assumptions into the nature of this policy.
      I disagree entirely. I won't even try to argue about that, but I will just let you know I disagree entirely.

      Welp, see you whenever the results are in.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by ScottishDrunkard: Needed to fix the empty space. ().

    • Tony wrote:

      I forgot to mention that the staff are indeed going to privately deliberate over this policy. However, I have to say that some of the solutions and opinions put forward are based around false information and assumptions into the nature of this policy. It's disappointing, but not surprising given the premise by which outside commentators have found themselves here.

      Glad to hear staff are going to discuss it, from what wiki staff have said in this thread and from your outlying of the idea I got the impression that it was primarily to make things clear and to improve the quality of the wiki and for the last few pages I think that's what the discussion focused on, it would be good if you could confirm the nature of the policy if that isn't the case.
    • Tony wrote:

      Considering that this is precisely how things were before, I don't think it's as revolutionary of an idea as you're trying to sell it.
      Not a revolutionary idea perhaps, but an idea worth returning to, considering the flaws in the current system, and outcry to return to the system of old that the Scot suggests.

      Tony wrote:

      However, I have to say that some of the solutions and opinions put forward are based around false information and assumptions into the nature of this policy. It's disappointing, but not surprising given the premise by which outside commentators have found themselves here.
      While the attempted mud-slinging is definitely uncalled for, I don't find any of the discussed SOLUTIONS to be particularly based on "false information or assumptions". The subtle slam at those of us brought here by this turmoil isn't necessary either. Many of us have contributed positively to the discussion, so it's hurtful to be dismissed because we're "outsiders". Especially with members of the community here interacting with us positively, and actively encouraging our discussion.

      It's disappointing that after all the discourse, your return comes almost solely with vague statements and thinly-veiled derision.
    • That's a disappointing and self-serving assumption. Loathe as I am to repeat myself, try to remember that these are people too. Likely, adults or students with lives to live and priorities outside of the wiki, which in all likelihood is a hobby for most of them. It's probably difficult to get the group together in even a majority to hash something this impactful out, and maybe a single conversation isn't enough to find a proper course of action, despite all the suggestions made here.

      I understand impatience, especially considering it's been about a month and a half that we've been having this conversation. I'm still incredibly disappointed by the most recent response from Tony, and because of it, don't hold a lot of faith that anything will change. It's about this point that apathy theoretically starts to settle in, for many involved.

      BUT, the fact of the matter is that we haven't heard anything concrete. So far, the majority of the moderators and admins here have been fantastically kind, accommodating, and willing to contribute to the discussion. This is clearly on their radar, so I see no reason to make assumptions.

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

    • Cody wrote:

      There should be another update on it soon.
      That could literally mean anywhere from tomorrow, to the realease date of Half-Life 3. Sorry for being really impatient, but I never expected this whole debacle to last this long, I expected about a week of "lemme just PM all the staff, with a strawpoll of EVERY option we have, to satisfy as many people as possible".

      ... Sorry, I'm just tired and want this whole thing sorted, juat so I can see one of the best Wikis I've seen not contain any SJW-bait.
    • ScottishDrunkard wrote:

      Cody wrote:

      There should be another update on it soon.
      That could literally mean anywhere from tomorrow, to the realease date of Half-Life 3. Sorry for being really impatient, but I never expected this whole debacle to last this long, I expected about a week of "lemme just PM all the staff, with a strawpoll of EVERY option we have, to satisfy as many people as possible".
      ... Sorry, I'm just tired and want this whole thing sorted, juat so I can see one of the best Wikis I've seen not contain any SJW-bait.
      Why are they suddenly beholden to you and only you? You keep talking about making a poll, but so far you've shown that you only want your way.
    • We ran into some complications along the way which was precisely why the staff discussions have taken this long. Cody is right though that a decision should be made relatively soon'ish, provided if we don't run into any more complications. I know people are getting impatient, and I know the silence is frustrating, but all we can ask is that people try to remain patient. Figuratively asking us "What's the hold up?" will not speed up the process.
    • Chuck wrote:

      It took longer than expected as we were seeking the most optimal way to reach a consensus for this and future policy discussions.
      Good to hear. One of the larger controversies here was how the polling was handled, and from an (admittedly limited) outside-looking-in perspective, it seemed like a change made without a lot of discourse. Having a genuine policy for deciding major changes to the wiki, among the team, is a definite positive for you guys moving forward.
    • Chuck wrote:

      Just in case you haven't noticed yet, during last week's meeting it was finally decided to go back to the old gender policy. It took longer than expected as we were seeking the most optimal way to reach a consensus for this and future policy discussions.

      Thanks for your patience.
      So, back to bsuiness as usual?

      Well, I best be off then. Back to the swamps from whenst I came. I'll inform /r/zelda on Reddit that things have reverted back to normal, and we can get on with our lives, and forget any of this ever happened.

      Toodle-oo.
    • So I don't mean to bump this or to post in a thread that already concluded. So I apologize upfront, but I don't really get how the pronoun approach would work for sheik. Sheiks "gender" in OOT is male, but in everything else since she's been referred to as she, so I think trying to list both sets of pronouns would make what's basically a Mulan story way more complicated than it is.

      Anyways, I just wanted to add that. Sorry for the bump.