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. 
Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:Pronoun amendments for MOS and Sourcing policy
Hello, friends! For August, I bring another set of amendments for pronoun usage on Wookieepedia, this time for the Manual of Style and the Sourcing policy. Here they are at a glance. Hopefully, I've made the proposed policy wordings as clear as possible, but further so, I hope any recommendations here can make them even simpler.
Proposals
Our first item is largely to do with droid character articles. The old precedent is to go with "it/its" unless a droid (e.g. R2-D2) has alternative specified pronouns, but we may now refer to all characters, including droids, by singular "they/them" pronouns if we don't know their pronouns. For clarity, it would be good for the policy section to also list some examples, so my proposal is thus:
1: Grammar and spelling — Wookieepedia:Manual of Style
Pronouns
Remove:
- If a droid has gender-specific programming and is predominantly referred to using gendered pronouns in source material, refer to the droid by those pronouns rather than "it."
- Refer to individual starships and space stations by "it"/"its" pronouns rather than "she"/"her" (example: "The Executor fired its turbolasers.").
Replace with:
- All characters, including individual droids, should be referred to by their specified pronouns; if unspecified, default to either non-assumptive singular "they/them" or "it/its" pronouns, providing each article is consistent throughout (example: R4-K5 is specified to have "it/its" pronouns; EV-9D9 is specified to have "she/her" pronouns; no pronouns are specified for either OM-5 or V0-RK, so each article may either consistenty use singular "they/them" or "it/its" pronouns).
- Refer to inanimate, non-sentient objects by "it/its" pronouns, even if characters or narrative text use other pronouns (example: "The Executor fired its turbolasers" instead of "The Executor fired her turbolasers.").
- In its singular form, a droid model, as with other types of products such as starship classes, should be referred to by "it/its" pronouns (example: "The XLT-014 labor droid was a fifth-degree droid […] Instead of arms, it had two long, flat claw appendages […] Units of the model had repulsorlifts installed in their three-toed feet.").
Secondly, we've started implementing separate referencing, where necessary, for characters' pronouns (e.g. "While the ambassador visited Coruscant,[1] he[2] continued to…"). It would be unreasonable to clutter the rest of article bodies with more of the same though, and we already have precedence for only needing to source the first instance of a person's rank in the article body, so I propose adding a relevant clause in the Sourcing policy:
2: When to use references — Wookieepedia:Sourcing
Remove:
- If an entire paragraph can be sourced to one and only one source, add the reference at the end of the paragraph. However, if there is more than one source, then reference specific sentences as necessary. Finally, if that is not enough, tag individual words as necessary, as a last resort. At a minimum, each paragraph and table row must be referenced. A cell that spans multiple rows references the information in the preceding cells of those rows.
Replace with:
- If an entire paragraph can be sourced to only one source, add the reference at the end of the paragraph. However, if there is more than one source, then reference specific sentences as necessary. Finally, if that is not enough, tag individual words as a last resort.
- Avoid repeatedly making separate references for the same information in an article body. For example, if a person's pronouns or rank can only be sourced to [1], then that reference must be made upon the first mention of the information in the article body, but it can be spared in subsequent mentions where the rest of the sentence uses other references.
- For tables, at a minimum, each table row must be referenced. A cell that spans multiple rows references the information in the preceding cells of those rows.
Thirdly and finally, following up on our decoupling of gender and pronouns, it would be good to codify that we no longer assume from pronouns a person's gender, and that for this we need to cite either explicit mentions of gender or sources that use gendered terms for them. Furthermore, it'd be good to back up the above MOS clause on optionally using singular "they/them" pronouns for persons with otherwise unspecified pronouns:
3: Reference rules — Wookieepedia:Sourcing
Formatting
Add:
- An individual's gender must be cited to a source that explicitly mentions it or refers to the individual by gendered terms (e.g. "princess" or "boy"). Pronouns do not indicate an individual's gender, and if no source specifies the individual's gender, then it should not be assumed.
- An individual's pronouns must likewise be cited to a source that explicitly mentions those pronouns. If no source specifies the individual's pronouns, the article may use non-assumptive singular "they/them" pronouns.
As linked at the top, you may see here for all of the above proposals without my notes. Please discuss away any suggestions and issues etc. below! OOM 224 (he/him) 15:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
- Great changes all around, though it may be a good idea to specify that droid models are still referred to as it/its. I know this has been discussed in length before, and given it's been a topic of discussion at all I feel as though it's worth codifying just so it's put to rest. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- The only thing I'd question is the sentence "Note that pronouns do not necessarily indicate a person's gender." This implies that there are some instances were we do use pronouns as indication of gender, which I don't think is the case? I'd change it to simply "Note that pronouns do not indicate a person's gender." or "Note that pronouns are not considered an indication of a person's gender when writing articles." if you want to keep it Wook specific I guess. Ayrehead02 (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- I definitely disagree with using they/them as the default pronoun for droids - is that something supported by sources? JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 17:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hmm, when sources refer to droids by they/them, it's either in the plural form or taken as a specific character's pronouns, so whether they/them are the default pronouns is something that can't really be confirmed or denied, I think. When sources refer to droid by it/its, it's either referring to the droid model in the singular form or taken as a specific character pronouns, so it's just about the same situation with these pronouns. I guess you could say that it/its is far more common than they/them, and we haven't been keeping track of any potential shift from it/its to they/them in Star Wars media like we did for sex to gender.
- The counterargument is that characters are characters all the same, organic or droid, so we should be consistently applying the standard of they/them as default singular pronouns rather than using it/its, which could be (and has been explicitly said in some sources, like the Legends Fate of the Jedi series in which people who treat the sentient spacecraft named Ship—who's pretty similar to a droid—as merely a tool refer to him by it/its pronouns rather than he/him) seen to be degrading. But it (pardon the pronoun) isn't wrong either, given that droids can be a pretty unique concept in SW where, depending on sources, they do shut down and are effectively mindless bodies, or some only have it/its as specified pronouns, or certain droids are shown as personalityless, non-sentient machines. This isn't to say that they/them, he/him, or she/her don't work for such droids, but that it/its can be valid.
- A bit of a conundrum, I admit, now that I'm considering it. I loathe to impose a standard across the wiki just for the sake of consistency with a convoluted subject like this where the debate could well be endless—perhaps it should be optional, and it/its is valid; they/them is valid—as long as the pronoun usage is consistent throughout an article, similar to how we allow both s's and s' so long as their usage is consistent in an article, either's alright? I have seen status articles do it one way or the other, and I suppose we can't say one is more ideal over the other. OOM 224 (he/him) 21:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with your above points. I think that the article writer should be able to choose between it/its and they/them if the pronouns are unspecified, as there really isn't a clear standard. I think for sure that non-sentient/personalityless droids (for example if a Laundry droid was givin a name) should be given the default of it/its. ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 21:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think allowing both would be a good compromise, yeah. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 22:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- A bit of a wording quibble about the second proposal - you've moved the "at minimum, each paragraph must be referenced" bit into the table section and presented it as having to do with tables, which is off. Imperators II(Talk) 09:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- A March SH thread presented a draft MOS revision of the same topic, and drew discussion from several editors, which could be incorporated in this new draft. Asithol (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- I had a look of that thread, and I think these amendments should cover all of the points there, except the Jango Fett clone issue, which seems to be inconclusive and is better off settled as a separate topic. Are there specific things that you think could be further included here? OOM 224 (he/him) 18:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- Not critical, but I still feel this point from that discussion adds clarity: "It may be worth pointing out that some characters, and even some narrative, use she/her for ships. This is common for real-world ships as well, so this is a situation where we are deviating from common practice, and that deviation should be noted as such." This was worked into that proposal as "Objects without sentience, such as vehicles or weapons, should use it/its pronouns, even if characters or narrative text use other pronouns (e.g. the Millennium Falcon is often referred to with she/her pronouns)." Asithol (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- Was just about to comment a similar thing to this point, seeing as we're deferring to pronouns when they are specified it'd be ideal to be explicit about how we handle them for objects. Commander Code-8 Hello There! 04:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Not critical, but I still feel this point from that discussion adds clarity: "It may be worth pointing out that some characters, and even some narrative, use she/her for ships. This is common for real-world ships as well, so this is a situation where we are deviating from common practice, and that deviation should be noted as such." This was worked into that proposal as "Objects without sentience, such as vehicles or weapons, should use it/its pronouns, even if characters or narrative text use other pronouns (e.g. the Millennium Falcon is often referred to with she/her pronouns)." Asithol (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- I had a look of that thread, and I think these amendments should cover all of the points there, except the Jango Fett clone issue, which seems to be inconclusive and is better off settled as a separate topic. Are there specific things that you think could be further included here? OOM 224 (he/him) 18:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm personally inclined to using they/them for all characters with unspecified pronouns but I guess I can say why it/its pronouns are also fine for droids with unspecified pronouns. My main worry there though is that it could potentially be a little confusing for some editors and also risk the pronouns for individual characters being inconsistent between pages.JM1998 (She/her)(talk) 16:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Good points. Maybe we should do a supplementary vote to decide whether we'd like to go with "they/them" for all, or leave it optional and open to the risk of individual characters' default pronouns being inconsistency across different articles? OOM 224 (he/him) 16:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Though I do agree with it being a supplementary vote, we never got plurality votes re-added to WP:CON which may make this harder.—spookywillowwtalk 01:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hmm true, I forgot about that. A plurality vote would kinda make sense for something like this. Maybe it'd be good to do it anyway for now with the current consensus ratio rules and a default option in the case of no consensus? If the vote is close and fails then we could definitely use a plurality vote. OOM 224 (he/him) 07:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Though I do agree with it being a supplementary vote, we never got plurality votes re-added to WP:CON which may make this harder.—spookywillowwtalk 01:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Good points. Maybe we should do a supplementary vote to decide whether we'd like to go with "they/them" for all, or leave it optional and open to the risk of individual characters' default pronouns being inconsistency across different articles? OOM 224 (he/him) 16:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Some wordsmithing: Asithol (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- "one and only one source": the "one and" is redundant.
- "Finally, if that is not enough, tag individual words as necessary": the "as necessary" makes the "if that is not enough" redundant.
- "To prevent excessive referencing": That is certainly one reason for this plank, but perhaps more importantly, it is the way scholarly writing is generally done, and our policy here is merely following longstanding real-world precedent. But I'm not sure we need to justify the plank within the plank's wording; probably eliminating this phrase altogether is best.
- "Note that pronouns do not indicate": the "Note that" communicates nothing and should be removed.
- "Likewise, a source that explicitly mentions a person's pronouns must be cited unless pronouns are left unspecified, in which case the article may use...": A clearer wording could be "Likewise, a character's pronouns must cite a source that explicitly mentions those pronouns. If no sources specify pronouns for that character, the article may use..."
- Brilliantly spotted. All points adopted, although I altered the last one so that it's consistent with the point immediately preceding it. What do you think? OOM 224 (he/him) 18:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, that improves my clunky wording. I still might change "person" to "character" to make it clearer this point isn't limited to humans (which I guess actually applies to both those bullet points), but that's a minor detail. Asithol (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- ...except of course it's also not limited to fictional characters, but applies to real-life people as well, which the term "character" excludes, so now I'm not really sure which word is better. Asithol (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah since the policies don't just apply to in-universe articles, the intention has been for these amendments to take effect for both in-universe and real-life people. I think "person" is a valid term for any character if they're sentient, human or otherwise. I do realise now though that it could be read as excluding named creatures and such so I was thinking that it should be further amended to "in-universe being or real-life individual," but that would make everything unnecessarily convoluted. I think "individual" works even better; it's pretty clear that the principle of non-assumption here should apply to everything (also Category:Individual creatures is in Category:Individuals, which includes hive-mind beings and just about everyone). It's good that you brought it up! OOM 224 (he/him) 19:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- Parts 2 and 3 (Sourcing policy amendments) have been put to a vote: Forum:CT:Sourcing pronouns and gender! I'll do the rest later as a two-part-vote since we've got a disagreement there. OOM 224 (he/him) 20:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
