Talk:Birdo/Archive 1

Archive 1

The big chitterchat

"Birdo, as described in the original first edition manual: "He thinks he is a girl and he spits eggs from his mouth. He'd rather be called 'Birdetta.'" A later printing of the manual omits the last sentence, but keeps the initial description. However, in Japan the manual says that the character's name is Catherine and would rather be called Cathy. Birdo was tough to beat, too, at the time. Birdo was not actually a baddie, however, like the perennial villian of the Mario Brothers games, "Bowser". Birdo was simply misguided, a little overenthusiastic, and ultimately, fell in with the wrong crowd. Birdo's motivation for trying to defeat Mario is given by the one line attributed to the character: "Ooh, you are so cute, I am NEVER going to let you go!" Birdo, basically was lonely, and had poor courting skills. As is common in Mario games, characters who were once former opponents often become friends and compatriots of the core Mario gang, and so it is that so very many years later, Birdo is back, to play tennis and have fun with the gang. Indeed, a picture in the Mario Tennis manual show Birdo and Yoshi, Mario's very favorite dinosaur pal, together apparently as a romantic couple! Birdo plays a fast and accurate game of tennis, and presumably is a regular at the Mario Tennis Clubhouse, flirts with Yoshi, and is an accepted part of the Mario 'Scooby Gang'.

I guess it might be considered more tongue-in-cheek than a story according to Nintendo Canon, though...

Screenshot

I found the SMB2 screenshot rather blurry... perhaps someone who owns the game can provide a reasonable substitute? Radiant_* 12:47, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

That looks like a screen shot from Super Smash Brothers Melee, if you go the the Super Mario Bros. 2 page you'll see a screen shot of the SMB2 stage from a different angle. I'll see if I can find a picture straight from SMB2, either the original or the SNES remake. On a seperate note, sorry about the screw up on the Japanese Birdo, there's a FAQ on GameFAQs that says that someone at Nintendo was playing a joke and added the bit about Birdo being a tranvestite to the English version. -- VederJuda 14:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The pluralization of "Birdo"

A previous writer listed the plural of "Birdo" as "birdoes." This looked funny to me, so I switched it to "Birdoes" with the logic that the generic race of "Yoshi" is "Yoshies," according to the in-game text of Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island. Honestly, I think it should by "Birdos" — no "e" — but since Nintendo uses "Yoshies" I guess it makes more sense. Kidicarus222 06:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Yoshies makes sense, because Yoshi ends in an 'i'. Yoshis is too clipped to sound right. The final 's' would come out as an 's' sound instead of a 'z' sound. Birdoes, however, has no justification, since Birdos looks right as it is. It's ok to add an 'e' when the word needs balancing, but Birdos is balanced as is. (PS This is probably the dorkiest thing I've ever debated.) --Carl 10:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I used "Birdoes" with the "e" because the plural of words that end in "o" like "potato" and "tomato" are "potatoes" and "tomatoes"—does anybody remember when Dan Quale thought the spelling of the singular was "potatoe"? I know there are people who spell them without the "e", but the proper way is to end in "-oes"; ending it "-os" makes it sound like a Spanish word. The only exception I can think of is "Oreos", but that's because there's a vowel before the "o". -- VederJuda 10:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought of an exception in favor of "Birdos" over "Birdoes." In the Legend of Zelda gams, the chicken creatures are called Cuccos or Cuckos or something — not Cuccoes. Besides, "Birdoes" looks a little like "Bird does," whereas no one would mistake how to pronounce "Birdos." Kidicarus222 20:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd say no. The page discusses most of Birdo's appearances as a "she" -- the specific character. There are other Birdos, just like there are other Yoshies. But you still have Yoshi -- a he -- and Birdo -- a she. Besides, "he" and "she" can also refer to animals, as long as the animal's gender is known.

Hmm, the tomatoes thing makes me think thta Birdoes has a kind of vegetable feel. Birdos seems a little more natural. Also, does anyone else think that the "she"s in the article should be replaced with "it"s? My argument is that Birdo is an animal, and its gender is sort of confused anyhow… --Carl 02:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thought about it and realized that "Birdos" is better based on the logic that not all words in English ending in "o" take an "e" in the plural. And I'm not just talking about Spanish words. "Rhinos" and "hippos" is correct. Thus, the "e" isn't compulsory. I say change it to "Birdos" now.

Just a note, rhino and hippo are only shortenings of the words Rhinocerous and Hippopottomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhavril39 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Who is the previous author who used the plural term "Birdoes." There is none on this talk page, only in this section. —Sent from a computer that is not mine 21:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.221.63 (talk)

Japanese name

In Japan, Birdo was referred to as "Catherine". In Japanese, it's "Kazaarin" (カザーリン). --PJ Pete

HORSE the band's Birdo

Under the Non-Game Apperances, I added a bit about HORSE the band's song about Birdo.Ashton Brood 00:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed a Misspelling

It once read: After defeating Birdo by grabbing her eggs while riding them, then trowing them at her 3 times...

I have changed trowing to throwing. (My very first edit!) Master Strike 14:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Birdo is listed as a guy in Japanese games.

Specifically, in Super Smash Bros. Melee, Birdo's trophy in Japanese calls the Birdo character a male. Can anyone back that up? It's similar to the claim that Yoshi is asexual (although that one was ultimately proven true).

Update: Here's a link in particular: http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=935598&topic=31436586&page=2

Several quotes from NessEggman: No, they didn't. Birdo is still a male in the Japanese games. I was telling my friends about this and they didn't believe me because they didn't have the manual for SMB2 (and no one read manuals anyway). So one day we were reading the trophy descriptions for just about everything in Smash Bros Melee to practice reading Japanese and it talks about how Katherine is a boy obsessed with the thought of being a girl, which was especially funny, because this is when we learned the name of Birdo in Japanese was Katherine, and one of the two friends there with us was named Katherine. ... Yeah, but people say that it was a translation error. Anyway, I asked another Japanese-speaking friend to type the description of the trophy for me from his game in IM, and the last line says "Convinced that he is a girl, when called 'Kathy' he becomes very happy." ... Here's a romanization of what I typed: "zibun o onna no ko da to omoikonde..." ... The rest of the description before it is just stuff about shooting eggs from his mouth that Mario or Peach can ride and stuff.

I'm going to add this info to the main article. Unless someone more skilled in Japanese comes around and can disprove this, it's sticking to it. I distinctly recall Birdo called a guy for Doki Doki Panic as well.

Update: New translation from the Japanese Mario Kart Double Dash site also implies that Yoshi and Birdo are romantically involved.

Yes, but the Japanese version of MKDD also has no indications whatsoever that Birdo is a gay male.

There's no truly solid indications that it's hetero OR gay beyond the behavior of the character and that one translated quote.

-A note from someone on the Vivian talk page:

Birdo was a male in the Japanese versions of the early Super Mario games, until the later games where Nintendo decided it was best to describe Birdo as a female because people assumed he was always a girl, though that was not their initial intention. Also, Vivian is a male in the Japanese version, despite his personality and appearance in the video game being depicted as a female. This was all confirmed by a staff member from Nintendo who I emailed to ask these questions.

Therefore, Birdo is NO LONGER MALE.

... Therefore, Birdo is - CENSORED - ouside of the Japanese release. 208.101.160.214 20:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now you're just in denial. A freakin' Nintendo employee stated that Birdo is now FEMALE, even in Japan!

Go read the Japanese info. Come back after you try translating. Thank you. 208.101.143.63 22:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

After careful deliberation, I've decided to come here and provide a compilation of the information thanks to the GameFAQs user, NessEggman. That link will eventually become useless, as topics on GameFAQs will purge to make room for more. I feel that these uncovered facts need to be documented somewhere before it's too late, and this seems to be the perfect place for that. Since I am not an expert on Japanese, these are edited versions of NessEggman's posts. I must say, though, that it is a somewhat long explanation, but it is very thorough, and should answer many questions. Read on if you have the patience.

In Japan, Birdo has always been male. Many translations from modern Japanese sources prove this. On the Mario Kart: Double Dash Japanese website (http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ngc/gm4j/02.html), Catherine's profile reads, "Yoshi no kanojyou ni mie te jitsuha kareshi?!" Translated, that means "Looks like Yoshi's girlfriend, but actually s/he is Yoshi's boyfriend! Let's join the race with your eggs!" or "Appears to be Yoshi's girlfriend, so is s/he really a boyfriend?!" or "Appears to be Yoshi's girlfriend... or is that boyfriend?!" It doesn't say 'he' or 'she'. The "s/he" in the final part of the sentence is only in the translation because it has to have some kind of subject in English. In Japanese, this is dropped (it literally just says "really, boyfriend?!"). Japanese rarely uses pronouns, especially gender-specific pronouns, so it is really unlikely that they actually use 'her'. It could potentially be argued that this is saying something like, "Catherine appears to be Yoshi's girlfriend, so does that mean Yoshi is a boyfriend?" However, the structure of the sentence in Japanese implies that both parts of the statement (before and after the gerund miete) would be referring to Catherine. This is a pretty simple structure in Japanese. Basically, if the last part was talking about Yoshi, they would have had to actually say Yoshi; you wouldn't be able to drop it unless you had the same subject as the previous part of the statement (which was Catherine). If you put it into an online translator, you're going to get a sentence with "her" in it. This is because the Japanese use the pronoun 'her' to mean "girlfriend." So if you say "It is Yoshi's HER", that means it's Yoshi's girlfriend. Technically, the sentence calls Cathy both Yoshi's girlfriend and boyfriend. In addition, in Super Smash Bros. Melee, the English description of Birdo's Trophy clearly says it is a girl. The Japanese text for Catherine's Figurine says that he has an obsession with thinking about being a girl. Furthermore, Catherine's Japanese Wikipedia page (http://www.geocities.com/megamanxtreme/catherinewiki.jpg) states, "While It's appearance, speech and general behavior would have you believe that it's a woman, it is, in actuality, a male transvestite."

Basically, both the Figurine in Super Smash Bros. Melee and the line on the Mario Kart Double Dash site don't literally directly say if Catherine is a boy or a girl, but they both talk about him as if he were male. If he were female, it wouldn't fit within the context; he wouldn't have to convince himself that he was a girl, nor would it be confusing if he would be called "girlfriend" or "boyfriend."

Boy characters thinking or acting like girls is very common in Japanese entertainment such as games and anime. Oftentimes, if a character is too girly, it will be changed to a girl overseas. Pokemon (made by Nintendo) has many examples of this, especially in the cartoons. For example, a character from Team Rocket, Kojiro / James, is often seen in women's clothing. In an edited episode, he even wore fake breasts and played with them to tease Kasumi / Misty (in a girls' swimsuit, no less). There have been past Nintendo games that have had male characters that were turned female when brought to America, like Vivian from Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door. In the original Japanese version, he was a boy, but he was changed to a girl in most official translations, most notably the English one. He was another 'guy-who-was-obsessed-with-being-a-girl', and even had a crush on Mario. While the Japanese game called him a male the entire time, several American players refused to believe the initial translations, saying that those were merely jokes saying that she was a guy. This is due to clashing cultural differences.

The reason why they allow a character they created to change gender is because of censorship in places like America. Japan generally follows a different standard when it comes to censorship. In Japan, a boy obsessed with being a girl is considered a funny comic character trait that appears in kids' shows and games all the time, so they have no problem showing this to kids. However, American kids aren't Japanese kids, so obviously they can't just tell American children, "Look at this weird transvestite dinosaur! Doesn't it make sense here in a completely different culture?" Since they cannot do that, they have to edit it to fit. Almost every game is edited when they bring it to America; sometimes they even make all new menus and graphics for games just because they think it might look a little more appealing.

Crossdressing in Japan is really different from that in America. While people don't just go out on the streets as the opposite sex, it's not uncommon to see famous guys dressed up like women. The popular pop group boy-band SMAP had a TV segment where one of the members (Shingo) dressed up like a woman and cooked breakfast for people. Very popular group Morning Musume. released a single in which the three lead singers of the song dressed up like men and sang about going to a dance with girls, and in the music video, they even tried to pick up the girls, and in the extended version on the CD (the 4th album), before hand they talk about dating girls, and the other girls refer to them as boys. Anime (which is for kids or all ages) also has many instances of this. Nuriko from Fushigi Yuugi, a comic/cartoon for young girls, had a man who dressed like a woman to get into the King's harem, and even after the rest of the cast discovered his gender, he still was obsessed with dating the man. Even games for all ages like Chrono Trigger had characters like Flea who admitted to being a male while dressing like a female and blowing kisses and Crono and friends. The theme is so common in just about all kinds of popular media in Japan, even for kids. It probably may not be easily introduced to American kids, but that doesn't mean that Nintendo wouldn't do it when Nintendo is Japanese.

I will conclude in NessEggman's original words, "I'm not saying this because I think that Cathy is a boy. I know this. Just as when you play the US version of the game you know she is a girl. You're not like confused or too stupid to figure it out, the game tells you she is a girl! In Japan, the games have always made it clear that he's a guy that tries to be a girl. You don't have to like the fact that he's a boy, but you can't deny it just because it doesn't match up with your interests. Of course, I guess you could always just say I'm lying, but then again, I could just as easily tell you I've never played the game in English and I think you are lying about him being a girl. And you could show me things in the games/websites that say he is a girl, and I will tell you to "prove your translation" and things, because for some reason you can magically change the games and websites to say different things." Metalsonic89 05:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"Catherine" is clearly and officially male (and therefore transsexual), and "Birdo" is clearly and officially female by way of retconning. They are different versions of the same character in different regions, happens all the time. However, this brings up the question: If there's an article about a video game character that is both transsexual and not transsexual at the same time, should it be in the "LGBT video game characters" category? Because when you do this, "Birdo" is listed under this category although she is clearly no longer transsexual according to Nintendo, and this creates confusion. -IG-64 06:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I say yes. Mainly because the character originally came from a Japanese game, was listed as such in official Japanese, and continues to be recognized as such by the Japanese developers and community. You can think of the American games as a separate continuity, but that doesn't change the fact that Nintendo of Japan is the leader behind the business.

Well, if this page works on that train of thought shouldn't the article be titled "Catherine" instead? Maybe with a subsection for Birdo that outlines the differences of the character in America? I've also noticed that the article currently refers to Birdo as "her." So if the article reflects the fact that Nintendo of Japan is the leader, shouldn't this be changed as well? -IG-64 17:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You're talking about a significant change in character, here. Differences between the English and original Japanese version, from sex to name, should be noted. It can't be outright ignored, since just about ever video game page has a noted difference on their pages (usually the title or censorship).

Here's a picture of Birdo in the Japanese "Super Mario USA" manual that came later: http://www.subphylumclothing.com/ebay/181/IMG_3639.jpg Note that the characters have both their original Japanese and alternate English names listed, and it is called Ostro like in the credits (still), but otherwise it's Catherine. 208.101.136.230 21:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Cause for Error of the Awareness of Catherine's Gender in the West

Assuming Catherine confirmed male, and Birdo a female, would it be right to research the origin of the cause why people in the West originally thought Catherine was "always a female?" Hope(N Forever) 14:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it wears a ribbon, is pink, and supposedly the manual says so. But there are several Birdos, like in Super Mario Strikers and even in Super Mario 2, you now, like the Birdos that spit fire.(And I suppose that there are also different varieties of Birdos/Cathys in Doki Doki Panic, since they are the same.) So, all the Birdos are transexual? That is weird because they seem to be a race like Yoshi or Toad, rather than a single individual.--189.153.91.192 17:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they're a species, but that has come to light only recently in the Mario sports spinoffs. Besides, there seems to be only one pink Birdo if I recall correctly. 208.101.136.230 21:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Birdo loves Yoshi

I've heard that birdo and mario's yoshi friend are mates. is this really true, or just a fan made pairing?--Fred Fredburger: Lord of Horror 00:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, hello? anybody here?--Fred Fredburger: Lord of Horror 21:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Short answer, yes, it actually says that somewhere above (I know it's a bit long, but it is there). Directly from the Mario Kart: Double Dash Japanese website (http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ngc/gm4j/02.html) - "Yoshi no kanojyou ni mie te jitsuha kareshi?!" Translated, that means something to the effect of "Appears to be Yoshi's girlfriend... or is that boyfriend?!" Note that the Birdo character is originally male in Japan (even though his name is Catherine), and Yoshis are all asexual as well, but otherwise this quote aims to pair them up. Outside Japan, the issue is kept vague. Birdo is also often called female or otherwise ambiguous outside Japan due to censorship, but that seems to be dwindling since Mario Strikers Charged Football called him male (though that may just as easily change in the American release). As for Yoshi, "he" is often used to describe him, but that's only because it serves as higher respect than "it", so it's not supposed to be a sex thing. 208.101.130.232 19:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Birdo Reference in "Super Paper Mario"

In the second-to-last world in "Super Paper Mario", the 4th gate keeper calls himself, Squatting Birdo.

I just thought I'd point it out before posting it on the article. Chaoshi 17:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm the statement about diamond rings in Mario Strikers Charged Football?

It says that all Birdo creatures wear diamond rings, but it gives a link to only one Birdo, the main pink one. Can anyone who has played the game confirm if the other Birdo things wear rings as well, or if they're even multiple playable Birdos? 208.101.152.167 13:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I heard that it was her engagement ring to Yoshi (so cute!!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhavril39 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

I Think Birdo deserves its own article. Deadlymethane2 22:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, he is a signifigant character because of his gender confusion and transgender issues. It's a historic and notable character for those reasons. Where is the merge discussion? Why are these always conducted in such a clandestine fashion? Klichka (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Article Restored

I just restored a great part of the article, leave a message here if you wish to discuss! Alexanderpas (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Gender pronouns

As someone who believes Birdo is a male, I find it bothersome that the majority of the pronouns in this article are female (she, her). The very first sentence of this article states "Birdo is a fictional character of indeterminate gender in the Mario series of video games." Would it not therefore make more sense to appease both sides of the argument by using a gender-neutral pronoun (it, its)? There's never been any concrete evidence, nothing stated by Nintendo officially as to what Birdo's gender is, so it seems foolish (and possibly biased) to state Birdo as a female in this article. --Antoshi~! ^{T | C} 00:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not bias, it's just the way it's written. I don't really care either way, except that "it" is definitely not acceptable, as "it" suggests no gender. And there are multiple references in the article that clearly use "she" and "her" to describe Birdo. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess 'it' does kind of suggest that but 'she/her' everywhere is incorrect. This will need fixing. --Yair rand (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It does not need fixing, that is merely your slant on it. There are references in the article that use "she/her", so just boldly going and changing the gender pronouns is not fixing anything. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There are also references in the article that use he/him and explicitly say that Birdo is male. It is well known that Birdo's gender is very ambiguous and that many reliable sources about the gender completely contradict each other. However many sources there are that say he/she is female mean nothing if the gender is debatable and the sentence "Birdo is referred to as male that believes she is female" is ridiculous. The only fix for this is to rework the article to be free of gender-specific pronouns. --Yair rand (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That is what we call a copout. We can't not give Birdo gender pronouns just because Birdo's gender is ambiguous. I didn't say references didn't exist for Birdo being male, but when the references counteract each other, we either go with the original version of come to a consensus on the matter. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

We can not give Birdo gender pronouns that are widely thought to be incorrect. Thus our options are:

1. Use "he/him/his" as we usually do when a character's gender is ambiguous.
2. Use the gender neutral "xe/xyr" pronouns. This is probably not a good idea as these are mostly unknown.
3. Use "it" which is also perfectly usable for characters that do not have a known gender.
4. Avoid using pronouns entirely, except where completely clear, as in the quote I gave above which should use "he".

We can't use a controversial pronoun as this violates NPOV. The original version does not have any added weight. There is definitely no reason to use "she". --Yair rand (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Option 1 is completely false. We do not do that, nor does it ever suggest sexual bias in determining which to use. Option 2 is silly. Option 3 tells us to use a gender pronoun that is never used to describe Birdo. And Option 4 demands we sacrifice the quality of the writing for the sake of being unbiased. When determining what we use, we have to take into account all factors. It's he or she, not it, because Birdo is never called an "it". For the most part, it describes an individual character, and without any direct sources from Nintendo describing Birdo as an "it" (and a source which calls Birdo's gender ambiguous does not qualify), we use he or she. And unless a compelling argument can be made to change from she to he, it shouldn't change. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that my edit sacrificed the quality of the writing at all, and even if it did, it would certainly make sense to change it for the sake of being unbiased. --Yair rand (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Being unbiased doesn't require changing the article in an unnatural way. The only reason we would avoid gender pronouns is to appear unbiased, but every article should use gender pronouns when appropriate. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. The need to be unbiased certainly makes using gender pronouns inappropriate. --Yair rand (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It is as neutral as can be. We don't do something that isn't usually done for something like that. It's not biased because either is appropriate. This is just how it was written and there's no need to change it. It's not biased to use a certain style of English, so it shouldn't be bias here. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) There seems to be still some opposition to having female gender pronouns. I think that neither pronoun is appropriate, and that the article should minimize use of gender-specific pronouns to the largest extent possible. --Yair rand (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ostro

At the end of Super Mario 2 NES it clearly states that this thing is called Ostro. Birdo was the bird that carried the shyguy. I know now that they call it Birdo in later games but that doesn't make it correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.148.192 (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The names were interchanged. The manual clearly says that (s)he prefers to be called "Birdetta." The name Birdetta wouldn't make sense if the actual name was Ostro. Ostro is the ostrich-like enemy. --Grandy02 (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd noticed that as well - one magazine referred to the boss character as Birdo, but the manual gave it as Ostro, and the ostrich-like bird that carries the Shyguy as Birdo. That the manual had got them the wrong way round makes sense, but what official source do we have to confirm which way round it was meant to be? Has it just been assumed from the way round that later works had it, or have Nintendo made an official statement addressing the confusion? The article cites this reference but that really just contradicts itself – refers to the character as Birdo in the text, shows a scan of the manual with his/her/its name as Ostro, and doesn't address the contradiction at all. — Smjg (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Gender discussion

In here, we discuss whether it should be changed to "him" or "it", or kept where it's at. I don't care which gender identifier it goes with, just that it doesn't go with "it". - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't see what's wrong with "it". Generally, if a secondary character's gender is unknown or ambiguous, it is acceptable to use "it" to avoid biasing the prose toward one or the other. That said, the other common convention is to use the most visible gender, which in Birdo's case would be female. If there is no clear source that states unequivocally that Birdo is male (and thus cross-dressing), then "she" would be the logical choice based on appearances alone.

Frankly, I'd stick with "she" since Birdo's appearance is very strongly female, but with strong weight placed on the controversy and debate surrounding the character's gender confusion. What you have in the article is pretty good already - it talks about how multiple official sources have switched the gender pronouns several times. I would add an explanatory statement to this stating that, for the sake of simplifying the prose, Birdo is assumed to be female. Keep in mind that that can always be changed or removed if we get something like an official statement from Nintendo stating that Birdo is actually male. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The recent edit to this page by User:PickPackPock seems to have successfully removed any debatable gender pronouns without sacrificing any quality of the writing. It appears that the entire problem has been eliminated without any consequences. --Yair rand (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

She

A disclosure is not necessary because there is an entire section of the Birdo article that deals with her gender. Birdo is a transsexual (transgendered) male in the Japanese canon, and this was even carried over to the North American release (and maybe other regions too) of Super Mario Bros. 2, before being retconned in later games to accommodate the cultures that do not view sexuality as fluidly as the Japanese., transsexuals should be identified with the gender they identifies themselves with. While the Japanese may do things differently, this is not a Japanese website, and we conduct ourselves according to the English-speaking norms (admittedly, these vary from country to country, but let's just ignore that for the moment, shall we?). , Captain Rainbow, actually supports calling Birdo a female, despite the fact that she is physically male in the game, stating that "depending on one's view point, she is a young lady." One could also argue that once the most recent English-language depiction of Birdo (the current one being Captain Rainbow) includes her as a plain female, we have to refer to her as a female, like how we call "Princess Toadstool" "Princess Peach", because that's her name these days. Policy is to refer to her as "Toadstool" only in the sections/articles of games that call her that, but "Peach" everywhere else; this could be applied to Birdo as well, but again, because she's transsexual, even in the games that acknowledge that she is physically male, Birdo should still be referred to using feminine pronouns. Same goes for Vivian, who is also transsexual, and must be dealt with the same way as Birdo. Also, even if the verdict is to switch (back) to gender neutrality on Birdo's article, don't use "it" to talk about Birdo, as it's considered offensive and dehumanizing, regardless of a person's sexual identity (Birdo's not technically human, but you know what I mean). -

Japanese website or not, we must strive for a neutral point of view. We have reliable sources clearly saying that Birdo is male, and other reliable sources clearly saying the Birdo is female. Japanese sources are just as important as English ones. --Yair rand (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

We have the ability to make a decision based on the provided information. Currently, she is far less commonly referred to as male. To non-fans, Birdo being called "she" is not confusing, so the number one priority of Wikipedia - education - is not hurt by calling her a "she". If you want to change it to "he" or "it", get consensus. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Didn't we have this discussion already? The current version is simply putting out incorrect information. Birdo's gender, when you take all the available information, is unknown. Saying that somehow Wikipedia has determined the correct gender is not helpful in the slightest. --Yair rand (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Unknown? How is it unknown when several sources use specific pronouns? Video games, web sites, etc. How can Nintendo be incorrect about this? At all? All I need are references establishing it to be true. Again - go find consensus. This is going to go back and forth until you do, so no discussion until you seek some additional opinions. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You know there is a Birdo species and she is named after it like Toad and Yoshi. So the boy and evil Birdos are males and the playable one is the Birdo

I'm sure that sentence made sense in your head.129.139.1.68 (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As you said, there is a Birdo species, so we have 2 Birdos: the cute and funny female playable Birdo, and Catherine,( the male who thinks he is a girl). Here's the source: http://birdo.wikia.com/wiki/Confusion. Its a special page dedicated to Birdo. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.153.110.215 (talk) 06:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Antroagist

She isn't evil, the evil birdos are male not the birdo

Development as a race?

Should we mention somewhere he that Birdo like Toad and Yoshi has developed into it's own race? Like in Mario sports titles you'll see different colors of Yoshis, Toads and Birdos in the audience meaning that Birdo could also refer to its race and not just the individual? --Victory93 (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Again the pronoun

The current state using the awkward double he/she pronoun throughout the article is a cop out and not the best possible compromise. This issue should be solved by following the proposed manual of style-Identity guideline for sex and sexual identities, in order to get a consistent treatment with respect to other articles with similar pronoun problems. While Birdo is a fictional character rather than a real person, the naming issue is nonetheless affected by the same requirements about pronouns for transgender people.

The guideline advices "using pronouns consistent with their current gender identification". If the official status now is that Birdo is female, the preferred pronoun should be "she" except "for situations where this may create some confusion" (in this case, games in which the character has been unequivocally presented as male). See archived discussions for how the community-wide-binding consensus was achieved. Diego (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. Birdo should be treated as a female, and not be confusing. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I boldly fixed it. I will try and keep a better watch on the article and vigorously defend it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

"She"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJECfDJ14LQ&list=UUnbvPS_rXp4PC21PG2k1UVg&index=21&feature=plcp

'Nuff said 2602:306:CE6D:6FB0:DD5F:FC79:4548:311D (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Image qualities

Here is a list of what each image that has been on this page in the past couple of days has to validate their use.

1. Lead image

Clearest

Most current image

Shows Birdo's femininity

Serves as the representative picture

1. Manual image

Shows Birdo's femininity

Shows Birdo in the context of the comment

1. Screenshot image

Shows Birdo's femininity

Shows Birdo's first role

Shows Birdo's primary attack

Explains how the character picks up her eggs and uses them against her

Shows Birdo in-game, the only image here that does that at all

In the end, the two qualities that I see in the manual image are either done in other images or text. Other images show the femininity, and the text can easily explain to readers that Birdo's feminine appearance has been around for her entire character history. If you remove the lead image, we don't have Birdo in a current appearance. If you remove the gameplay image, we don't know what Birdo looks like in any game, nor do we know how the egg works. In what way is showing something that can be illustrated through words more important than those? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

There's one really important function of the second image that you're missing in your list:

1. Manual image

Shows the contrast between Birdo's feminine appearance and masculine description in the text in the way it was first presented to the world.

Showing this contrast can't be achieved only by words, because the feminine appearance wasn't described in words in the manual. This function is what I was trying to explain to you at my talk page - but you didn't include it in your list above, which shows that I failed to communicate what function is this image really providing. Clearly the available sources find this contrast relevant to the character in the context of the manual, as there is ample commentary about the additions and removals of text at different versions and about the visual appearance of the image.

There's a second function that is missing in your list and is also important:

"Showing Birdo's femininity as it was depicted in the early stages".

In the screenshot image the early feminine depiction is not apparent (you can't even recognize the bow in the pixel art) so you also miss this function. You can explain with text what the feminine features were, but not how they look; and it's well known that the visual style of characters drift during time, and the early proportions of ornaments like the bow can be completely different from the later ones. You need "before" and "after" pictures to display that evolution.

The image in the manual contains both the pixel art as well as a detailed drawing so it's the best way to illustrate the initial shape of the feminine features back at the time when the sexual confusion appeared. If you remove the second image you're missing all that, which is critical to the visual characterization and to the gender ambiguity that is central to the character.

Finally I'm worried by the way in which you're using some arguments that are not part of the WP:NFC and don't match what the policy says. I'm writing an analysis of them and posting them to your talk page; because I don't understand what do you think we gain by removing the image. Diego (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I am using arguments from NFC. The manual scan, for the most part, does things that the other images do better. For what it does that the others do not do, it isn't necessary, as that is information can be told through text. Images can never be added simply through convenience; the goal of using as few free materials as possible is more important. As for the evolution of Birdo's femininity, all we see is that the character's design became more detailed, and that Birdo got a diamond ring in later versions. Birdo has remained almost unchanged through the history of the character. Is there any critical commentary on Birdo's growth, and whether it was significant? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You say that you're using arguments from NFC, and then use two arguments which don't appear in NFC (that the information can be removed if we can tell it through text, and that using few non-free images is a goal in itself). I definitely can't make sense of your reasoning. And you didn't comment on the #1 criterion for having this image, to show the masculine-feminine contrast that certainly is critical to Birdo's characterization according to critical commentary. Diego (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm restoring the image according to policy for non-free content criteria WP:NFCC#1 (No free equivalent), WP:NFCC#3a (no other images with equivalent purpose - to illustrate the introduction of the character with the original female characteristics together with male description), Wikipedia:NFCC#8 (contextual significance), and acceptable use of non-free images Wikipedia:NFCI#8 (historical importance for the character), Wikipedia:NFCI#9 (image is subject of commentary).

The use of the image is in direct support by the text of the policy, and thus is consistent with the community-wide consensus about this use - with the purpose of the exemption doctrine at the NFC policy, to include non-free content that supports the development of a high-quality encyclopedia.

For these reasons I'm recovering the previous status quo before your disputed attempt to delete it. The reasons you gave for removing the image are not based on the wording of the NFC policy, and are at best a personal interpretation of the policy that is open to debate. As such, I'm asking you to attempt to build some level of consensus before trying to delete it.

At the very least you should explain much better how removing this image will improve Wikipedia, since it's not clear from your arguments; so far it seems to me that you're just trying to follow rules for the sake of it, but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and following rules has no value in itself.

If you disagree with this application of policy, you should seek further participation by uninvolved editors because it seems we've reached a dead end at this conversation. Diego (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The goal of Wikipedia is to use as few free images as we can muster. That goes without saying. It is not a matter of bureaucracy to follow one of the most basic tenants of the project. The manual scan offers details that can be discerned by reading text and examining other images. If we tell readers that Birdo's design has stayed largely the same, and that Birdo's design is feminine, then readers grasp that the design used in the manual scan was feminine. The big question, the one question of inclusion is: if the image is not present in the article, will the article be damaged as a result? Because one of the primary reasons is convenience, no. If we can teach readers using only free images and text, we should. If that's not an option, then get as close to that ideal as you can. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The goal of Wikipedia is to use as few free images as we can muster. That goes without saying. Where did you possibly get that idea???!!!!?!!?! Certainly not from the WP:NFC, which is the exception to the rule that all images be free, and the one policy allowing us to include copyrighted images. The Wikipedia basic tenet is to maximize free content, not to minimize the non-free one; you made up the second part, and the first doesn't imply the second. If Wikipedia itself can recognize that "Non-free content is allowed under fair use", why can't you? You won't find anywhere a requirement to minimize the global number of free images (not even WP:NFCC#3a, which states something completely different). Diego (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The nutshell of the page you link: "It is used for a purpose that cannot be fulfilled by free material (text or images, existing or to be created)". It does not pass the second basic criteria of non-free content - that it cannot be adequately summed up using free content such as text or public domain images. The text adequately sums up the contents of the manual, and it utilizes other images considered fair use. The lead image can be used because it does multiple things, the most important of which is illustrating the design of the character for identification purposes. The image you believe should be included can be summed up using other non-free images as well as text. The nutshell states outright that if an image can be summed up using free means, it shouldn't be included. The first line of the actual guideline (not policy) asserts that the goal is to be a free encyclopedia - something that cannot possibly be achieved with the existence of non-free content. The project accepts this fact, but also accepts that they need to make exceptions to the guideline because not all subjects can be summed up using only free content and text. The image you're providing is not an exception because it is well within our abilities to adequately sum up the contents of the image using only text and the lead image, which has definitely fulfilled the entire non-free content criteria. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The image can not be adequately summed up with free content alone, nor with the other non-free images provided; that's why the second criterion allows us to include it. I already stated the use that can't be conveyed by text, the contrast between female and male depiction as it first appeared; you didn't care to comment on that use.

I'm aware that I can't turn you into an inclusionist, but the very least you could do is to follow the criteria as defined in the guidelines that the community arrived to by consensus. The golden rule for including some image as acceptable use, explicitly allows for images that are themselves subject of commentary (WP:NFCI#9) in compliance with the WP:NFCC#8 criterion from policy. This is what current consensus admits as information that should be provided visually, when adequate to the context as discussed by the sources.

Your forged criteria that "if the reader can painfully extract part of the information from other images, then this one can be deleted" is not part of the policy (and is not what the nutshell says), it's not the current case because there are uses that can't be conveyed with text alone, and is instead achieving the opposite of what the guideline suggest us to do - to include images that reliable sources decided to comment on; your attempt to sidestep the direct advice of the guideline with arguments that are not part of policy nor the guideline requires you to explain how deleting the image would improve the encyclopedia. I already asked you to do this and you ignored me. Diego (talk) 11:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, fact: A free encyclopedia is accomplished by removal of all non-free content. Because non-free images are often required to simply explain a subject, the encyclopedia can only be so free. The image you provide is not required, because what it illustrates is absolutely not something that needs to be done through non-free content. Readers can easily figure out that Birdo is feminine and has always been feminine if we, the editors, tell them so. Readers do not need an image to make reading the article more convenient. The image is, also, not subject of commentary. They are used as tools by these sources to comment on the character. The manual scan is not the significant element of the article, the character in the scan is. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 09:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Fact: removing non-free images does not reduce the amount of free information on Wikipedia.

• Fact: "A free encyclopedia is accomplished by removal of all non-free content" is not a criterion appearing in the policy nor the guideline. The free information is the same before and after removing the image, but the amount of encyclopedia is less.

• Fact: You're jumping through hoops if you need to distinguish between "the character", "the image of the character" and "the manual scan of the image" to avoid applying the criterion for acceptable content in the guideline to this case.

Removing NFC is done when it exposes the Wikimedia Foundation (which doesn't happen for encyclopedic images), not because it increases the amount of freedom (it doesn't - free information remains exactly the same with or without the non-replaceable NFC besides it). Removing non-free encyclopedic images hurts the encyclopedia. Thus it should be done only when their content can be replaced with free content. So the source of disagreement is to what extent this image could be replaced by words alone. You keep repeating one use (showing the feminine traits) and ignoring the rest, the ones actually used for illustration that are unique to this image. Diego (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Notability tag

The sources supporting notability for this character and some others from Nintendo are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia's community at WikiProject Video games; the general notability guideline doesn't require coverage from major news outlets, only from independent sources that are considered reliable; your doubts about these and other similar articles are against the current established consensus.

If you have concerns about the reliability of any of the used references you're welcome to present them, but you should make specific claims of why these particular references are not reliable, and/or ask for a review at the relevant notice board (which is Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard); not put a boilerplate tag, as this doesn't help us to improve the article. Diego (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

And there *is* some academic coverage, see [1] (albeit a student journal, I don't see how it would be less reliable for establishing notability, since it is peer reviewed). Birdo has been noted in gender studies. Diego (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Please don't request a third opinion before the other party has responded and discussed. Gigs (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Why not? The other party has responded and discussed at the user's talk page and in the edit comments, so this counts as an active disagreement between two parties. Diego (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

WP:GNG is an important guideline, but WP:V is a policy. If the notability of the subject is verifiable via multiple reliable sources, then the notability is established. It seems to be. If it's not, take it to AFD. Specific issues about the appropriateness of including specific information on the page is a separate issue, which should be agreed through discussion on this talk page. The article does not need a 'notability' tag. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The Condition of Birdo's Page

Hello :) I've read this article and I have to say it is poorly written. It is so repetitive to state that Birdo is transgender too many times throughout every section in her page, that's why we have the gender section for!. Birdo's page must focus in her appearances through the mario series and not in her gender. --189.224.2.142 (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Manual image

DEADHORSE it may be, but this argument is not opinion, it's fact. A reader gains no more appreciation for the contrast that exists between Birdo's feminine appearance and the masculine description used to describe her. The manual image is one of the best examples I've ever seen of users adding an image for decorative purposes. The manual uses two images of Birdo: the first image, the Birdo art, resembles the Birdo as seen in the lead - the first thing people see in the article, in fact. The second image, the sprite, is represented in the third image. The text, meanwhile, is shown in the article's body. There is literally no element that is not represented by something else, and a second, third, fourth, or fifth opinion will show this to be true. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 11:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You don't need the image to explain how the manual text gives a masculine gender to Birdo, you can cite the manual directly, and avoid the image. --MASEM (t) 12:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Why did you think silently removing the image was a good idea? If nothing had changed in the arguments provided, why did you expect a different result than the previous time we held the same discussion? No new arguments have been made (one very similar to the one by Masem above was already in last year's talk), so the outcome should be the same as before (defaulting to no change being made) unless someone suggests an idea for a compromise solution.

Even if the image could be considered redundant, which I don't think it is for the reasons stated above, I'd rather have and delete the one in the lead; I consider early video game manuals as historical documents, and thus the first depiction of a popular character has much more educational value than a later reinterpretation by a publicity department. Incorporating considerations like these made by all editors into the article is mandated by policy, and it wouldn't have happened if I had not noticed your removal in the edit changes. Diego Moya (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

A lead image should give readers the clearest depiction of the subject without confusing them. The removal of the lead image is the removal of an image used by Nintendo to promote its video games, thus removing the most recognizable image of Birdo to readers. Your argument of "first depiction" is irrelevant to the fact that we have Birdo's first depiction in the article already, in the very game wherein she appeared. The manual scan conveys no information that isn't already conveyed in another image or the article's text, and quite frankly, your view on manual scans is irrelevant. A reader has no interest in the manual scan if they don't know the subject beforehand. To the uninformed reader, there is no more value to seeing the image of the scan than there is with reading what its contents were. The manual scan exists for fans, no one else.

By the way, consensus can change. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 15:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course consensus can change. Are you willing to work towards a consensus solution that integrates all concerns stated, instead of only yours? If not, consensus will not change. (i.e. comments like "your view on manual scans is irrelevant" is not the way policy mandates you to behave) Diego Moya (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

In fact, looking back, you know what I see? I see a discussion between you and I. It's pretty disingenuous of you to invent a fake consensus, you know. On top of that... a user named Curtaintoad reverted your reversion of my edit. Now, we have a third person who does not feel that the image is good to use. At best, the consensus was inconclusive. At worst (for you), the consensus was always 2-to-1 in favour of removal. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, 3a. from WP:NFC: "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." This passage of the policy recommends that we try to do with fewer fair use images if possible. And it is. The depictions of Birdo in the manual scan are not dissimilar enough from the other depictions that the scan needs to be there for visual purposes, and the text is not necessary when readers can simply read the text as free content. As such, the only real argument you have is "historical significance", which is even less relevant to WP:NFC than you claim my argument to be. There's no educational value to telling readers what they can get from the other images and the article itself. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Why do you keep ignoring all the real reasons I've provided to keep the image, and inventing things I didn't say? It looks like you're discussing with yourself, with no acknowledged input from anyone else. Diego Moya (talk) 07:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The reasons you're arguing to keep the image are against NFCC policy, so its hard to accept them. We nearly always use the best representation (generally the latest) of a video game character to depict them, and only if their earlier appearances are of significant discussion do we include other images of the character. As Birdo from the SMB2 manual looks very similar to the current image, save for eyelashes, there's nothing gained by the manual image and it it should be deleted. --MASEM (t) 18:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Ex-cuse me? Since when are not "reducing the amount of non-free content to the minimum" and "preferring images supported by reliable sources" the criteria we use? Diego Moya (talk) 09:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

What images are relevant?

Neutral description of the images:

• identifying the character with a recent and relevant promotional image, which shows details mentioned in the article not seen in other images.
• displaying the historical first appearance in the context that caused its gender ambiguity. Shows art of the character from the first game and the sprite.
• identifying Birdo's first appearance in a US-made video game, which also displays how the character has changed since her first appearance, and the property of her eggs. Also shows what kind in which game Birdo first appeared.

Article contains three non-free images of the video game character, each one for a different primary purpose. Which ones of the usages are encyclopedic and educational, and is there a way to reduce the number of non free images while retaining the same uses? Diego Moya (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The usages, as identified by me are the following:

• identifying the character with a recent promotional image.
• displaying the historical first appearance in the context that caused its gender ambiguity.
• displaying Birdo's first appearance in a US-made video game, as well as Birdo's primary method of attack by throwing eggs from her mouth.

You can read a more complete description of these usages at each image's fair use rationale, by clicking on each image in the article. Diego Moya (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You need to demonstrate more than a supposed "historical value" for an image. You have to show that it is required for this image to be included, as though there is something to the image that can not be replicated using any other image combined with the quotation used in the scan. The reason why your view on manuals as historical images - by the way, neat how you call the manual scan historic, while the first thing Birdo's ever been seen in is "a gameplay screenshot" - is irrelevant, as a gameplay screenshot has that same historical value. Methinks that the RfC creator intended for a skew to occur. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the third image is irrelvant. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Gabriel, the third image is irrelevant. However I feel the second image may also be irrelevant; it could just as easily be cited to the manual and the image left out without any loss of quality to the article. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 00:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I feel that it's important to show Birdo's first appearance, as in doing so, we show how the character has developed since her first appearance. This is a common in character articles that I see; Donkey Kong (character), Mario, and Link (The Legend of Zelda) all employ this. It also shows other details, such as the method by which Birdo shoots eggs, explaining the properties that they can be picked up mid-air, and it shows the kind of game in which she was first seen. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions)

I would have added myself the information of the screenshot as being from the first game, you only needed to ask; there's no reason to assume bad faith. You should also know that editing other people's comments in talk pages is extremely bad form - don't do it ever again with my comments. Since the request for comment is supposed to be neutral, I've re-edited the three usages so that all three points are of similar length. Diego Moya (talk) 07:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry; in the future, I will remember how unfair it is for you to not get the only representation of the situation. The whole point of the assessment is to be neutral, and not controlled by one user or another. That would be like me fixing a typo in someone's nomination of a deletion article. You shouldn't be given priority over all users. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 07:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, because changing some other person's words is the same as fixing a typo? If you want the statement to be neutral, you can add your own words right below to address anything you found missing, instead of changing the meaning of my words. I've reordered the RfC request text so that it excludes the description of the uses and it will be posted as just a small paragraph. Now the use descriptions are to be considered all my own. Diego Moya (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Changing someone's words so that the presentation is actually neutral. Do you really not see the problem in the fact that you are given the first say on the RfC? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you want to have a RfC that begins with a neutral request? Ask me to collaborate in elaborating a neutral wording. However, this is not what you did. I don't find your version (that you made appear as my words) particularly neutral either. Diego Moya (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Content guideline WP:NFCC#3a states that the amount of non-free images should be kept to a minimum. If this is the primary criterion and the only uses considered important are visual identification and first appearance, the way to achieve it is by keeping the manual image and removing the other two. This limits the amount of use to one, while displaying both a drawing and a pixel art representation. Given that it includes both styles, it satisfies most requirements with only one image, the minimum possible. Other editors agree that the drawing in the manual is similar to the one in the promotional material, so either one could replace the other. This is not my preferred solution, but I could support it as a compromise. Diego Moya (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The manual scan isn't the primary image that people would associate with Birdo; that would be the lead image. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Judging by the outcome, I think it's fair to say that the manual scan image should be removed. Whether the screenshot image should be removed is a discussion that absolutely should occur in the future. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 12:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

What "outcome"? I don't see anything remotely approaching consensus at this discussion. The lion's share of the talk was about how the wording of the RfC notice. If anything, the majority of commentators coincided to delete the third image, more than the second, though majority counting doesn't have much weight by itself. Diego (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

There was no one supporting the manual scan besides you, and a total of three people who declared it to not be acceptable for use. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 02:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you willing to remove the manual scan and the screenshot because of the above two comments? Because that was their position (so, there is also a total of three people arguing to remove the screenshot). Diego (talk) 06:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

My drive-by opinion is that the current infobox image of the 3D rendering serves as a more primary identifier and should be favored over a manual illustration. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Voice acting

Preserved this deleted content:

voiceactor = Jun Donna (1996)
Jen Taylor (2000–2006)
Isaac Marshall (2003–2005)
Samantha Kelly (2007)
Yuhko Kaida (2008-present)

Is there a source for the information about voice actors interpreting the character? (Either the removed information or the new one). Diego (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

No consensus

It seems that you and I use different definitions of consensus. I use the version at Wikipedia:CONSENSUS and Wikipedia:NOTVOTE, where all the parts involved have to agree upon an intermediate version that satisfies all concerns, and positions are measured by the weight of arguments instead of the number of "me too"s. The two persons that commented didn't provide any reason for their opinions.

As of today, it's still unclear what you have against the image from the manual. Most arguments against it are from the i don't like it or WP:NOTNEEDED variety. The valid one, minimizing usage of non-free content, is best served by the version with only the image in the manual, as that image more or less serves all the functions of the other two images, and the converse is not true; therefore I genuinely believe that version is an improvement over the one with only the promotional image.

With respect to liking or disliking each image, I make no claim that my opinion is more nor less valid than the other's; but also not less, and therefore it must be taken into account and not dismissed. With everything equal, any version would be equally valid. But we have a third party that is a tie-breaker: the image from the manual is covered by a reliable source describing it; the promotional image and the screenshot have none. That criterion is used by NFCC as providing acceptance towards inclusion, and thus that image is to be preferred over the others according to policy. Diego (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, since when did a single user get to decide the value of others' arguments? Why don't you allow an administrator to decide whether or not the minority opinion on a matter is correct rather than decide that your opinion is more valid than others'? In a perfect world there could be an idealized version of the article that satisfies all parties. If that was a necessary criteria for gathering consensus, there would be virtually nothing accomplished on Wikipedia. To suggest that the other people who feel the image to be inappropriate have no good arguments is completely insulting and is factual demonstration of you saying in effect "my opinion is fact, if you disagree you are lying." I grow so completely tired of your attempts to control the article in spite of numerous objections - and in spite of absolutely not one single Wikipedian agreeing with you. When no one is on your side, perhaps it's time to accept that maybe it's not because you're a lone wolf trailblazer but in fact, you're just wrong. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 15:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

As I said I'm not discussing the validity of other's arguments as better or worse than mine, only their existence or lack thereof. If there is no argument presented, it cannot be better than mine, and my argument should still be accounted for - even to disagree with it, as long as the disagreement is reasoned. If the more reasonable position with respect to policy is to remove the image, I will be the first to recognize that consensus; all I'm asking is that this position is based on arguments consistent with policy, not in "we can make more edits than you". So far that discussion hasn't happened, or not with enough detail so as to address my objections. I won't tolerate that they are simply dismissed by mob rule, as you don't have the right to decide that my arguments have no value either; consensus means that "majority" is all by itself not the criterion to follow, but how well that majority is arguing that the change will improve the encyclopedia. Diego (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Diego, there's nothing I can suggest more strongly than you leaving Wikipedia. My God, you are simply awful. For you to express that this consensus is by mob rule is for you to say that every single person who has disagreed with you on the matter is a worse Wikipedian than you are. I am utterly shocked that you are suggesting that anyone is trying to devalue your arguments at the exact same time as you are saying that multiple other people are all wrong and you are completely right. Who are you to decide the weight of peoples' arguments? By what authority do you hold that makes it okay that you are arguing that no consensus occurred just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT? The situation of this discussion has come down to one thing: That you want ownership of this article and are bullying people in order to get it. As shocking as it may be, perhaps your perception of other arguments' strengths is not based on objective fact but instead that you disagree with them. It should absolutely not be acceptable for someone with a conflict of interest to decide the value of others' arguments. No one besides yourself has found the arguments made by your opposition to be faulty. With that, there is no reason to assume that there is no proper consensus. It is not okay that you are dragging this issue out. What do you intend to accomplish? As it stands, the only thing we will have seen here is an image removal in spite of a single user kicking and screaming in an attempt to get his way and for the result of the debate to be contrary to the majority opinion on the matter. All you're doing is making yourself look bad. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 16:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

If you read WP:OWN, you'll find that you're the one making arguments in it ("stop editing Wikipedia!", "you're calling other people's arguments wrong!" - which I haven't done, quite the opposite). I reserve my right to decide when the arguments that I have introduced have received an answer that I find satisfactory, and to keep discussing until someone provides an answer to my concerns; it doesn't need to be an agreement with me, but it at least need to acknowledge what I said (that the image documents a relevant point in the history of the character, and that the sources discuss this image and not the other, both of which are favored by NFCC). Until now you hadn't addressed these points with reasons for disagreement, only with plain unexplained rejection. You have done it below now, and thus the discussion is advanced from the stale point where it was. Was that really that difficult, that it took you months to answer to what I actually said? Diego (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're very confused on this matter. See, it is not I who is trying to force an article to be in such a way that only I want it like that. The removal of the two images is an act that is supported by multiple people, while the inclusion of the manual scan is something only one person has ever attempted to argue in favour of. For you to insist that the consensus is invalid and that the image must stay until you are satisfied with the arguments presented in favour of its removal is for you to imply that your satisfaction is paramount in forming a consensus. Who cares if you are satisfied? Should all discussions be unified? If that was the requirement, nothing would be accomplished. This is the purpose of a consensus, to establish what people want. The arguments made against the manual scan are sufficient enough that the majority should not be ignored. No one feels that the arguments made in favour of the image's removal are insufficient except for you, and since you have a conflict of interest in the matter, it is trivial. Why is it more important to satisfy you than it is to satisfy any one of the people who have participated in this discussion and disagreed with you? And by the way, you ask later in the discussion how four people oppose the use of the manual scan in the lead. Well, obviously, three people oppose its use period, which infers that they oppose using it in the infobox. A fourth person has specifically stated that the manual scan should not be used in the lead. That is an 80% consensus. If we believe that there should only be one image, then 80% of the people - two of which are administrators with tons of experience on Wikipedia - saying that the manual scan is either not acceptable or not acceptable in the lead means that the image should be removed. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 17:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no requirement to show the pixel-ed version of a character, unless that pixeled version has itself been the subject of significant discussion (arguably the case for Mario himself over the years but not here - Birdo's claim to fame is the gender confusion for all purposes). This also applies to the SMB2 screenshot - it's only demonstrating a facet of gameplay from that game that is easily summed by text (realistically you'd need two or more frames to show the mechanic more clearly, and that's not going to fly in terms of NFCC). Thus, the pixel image - either from manual or the game - is unneeded and you only need the current 3D representation of the character for this. --MASEM (t) 15:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Masem, I agree that the pixel representation is not the main reason for the manual image. My argument for inclusion of the manual is based on its value at illustrating the origin of the gender confusion and of the original misnaming of the character, both of which are discussed in the references; demonstrating the pixel representation is just a plus. As the 3D promotional image isn't discussed at reliable sources and the manual scan provides an equivalent portrayal of the artwork, both should be interchangeable with respect to WP:NFCC#1, and the second one provides more encyclopedic content and is more supported by sources. What reason is there to prefer the advertising material? The only one I can think of is because it's prettier, but "decorative" has little weight when using non-free content. Diego (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem - as stated by nearly everyone else - is that the use of the manual scan is entirely decorative. It doesn't explain the text at all, and it does not create any confusion for anyone who is unable to view the image. What is discussed in reliable sources is the fact that there was gender confusion. Readers can envision the manual scan, as the only noteworthy details were what was said, not what was shown. That said, there is definitely a consensus against using the image in the lead - four people have specifically stated that it should not be used in the lead. Can you for one moment respect other people and accept that maybe everyone disagrees with you on this matter because you are wrong? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 16:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

First, let's agree to disagree that the manual scan doesn't provide important visual information. Second, where did anyone (other than you) oppose to using the image in the lead? I've missed that. Third, what about the idea that both the manual scan and the promotional image are interchangeable, but only the manual appears in a reliable source? You still haven't commented on that. Four, I'll admit the validity of everyone disagreeing with me when they explain why they disagree and how their disagreement improves Wikipedia, not a second earlier. If you dedicated as much effort to explain yourself as you do to try stopping me from caring about the article, the discussion would advance much more quickly. Diego (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The manual image provides important visual information but it is duplicatative of other non-free and free elements, so it's one or the other, you can't have both. And if you keep the manual image, it either then would be the infobox image or you'd have a blank infobox. There is more educational value using the 3D render as the infobox image and citing the manual for the gender confusion part, than using the manual image that does both, while minimizing non-free. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your rational answers, they're a blow of fresh air in this confrontational conversation. That's what I was saying all along; it's either one or the other, as both have similar descriptive power of the character's look. Can you explain why you think a 3D promotional render has more educational value than the original portrayal (when the gender was not officially established as female)? As I disagree with that, I'd like to weight that value against the appearance of the manual scan in a reference, which the 3D render doesn't benefit from. Diego (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt from a quick search for Birdo on Google images and through the official sites that the character's 3D incarnation is by far a more recognized and characteristic example of its appearances in games. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Diego, but I must remind you that when you call every dissenting opinion false and declare a factual consensus invalid, people get frustrated. I have had it up to here with dealing with this issue for months. I am tired of the fact that one person has managed to disrupt this article for months. I am completely tired of you declaring that "the other arguments aren't satisfactory to me and therefore the discussion cannot end." If that was acceptable, every single AfD would still be operating to this day. You cannot justify dragging a discussion out where there is a clear consensus in opposition to you. I will continue to remove this image until an administrator declares that the numerous people who have disagreed with you have arguments that are not based on Wikipedia policies or guidelines. If you want the image to remain, then you can get an administrator to examine the consensus. Reverting me is to ignore all policies and guidelines and is a clear violation of WP:OWN. Unlike you, I am not acting on my own personal desires but in fact the desires of every single person besides you. Stop turning a simple consensus into a bureaucratic mess. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 17:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

If you don't stop your personal attacks like "you call every dissenting opinion false" I will bring you to ANI. If you look for "false" on this talk page, you're the only one addressing it to other people's arguments. As it seems that you don't have anything to bring to the discussion, I will stop answering to your blatant violations of WP:AGF until you start discussing the content, not the editor. Diego (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

How am I supposed to react to you declaring that all four people who have voiced their opinions on this matter have not presented strong enough arguments for you to allow the image to be removed - as if you had this authority to begin with? There is no doubt that you are declaring the arguments to be too weak to be a proper consensus. In addition, you follow this statement by refusing to allow the effects of the consensus from taking place. It is not your authority, or in fact even within your ability, to make that decision. Perhaps when this discussion is over, you can learn to respect the opinions of others and accept that when a consensus is formed against what you want, it's not because of "mob rule" or "a vote" but in fact multiple people making an argument that they feel sufficient enough with which to establish this consensus. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Um. What? The only two uses of the word false were me declaring someone's statement false and me accusing you of denying the validity of peoples' arguments. The first time was to declare that someone was wrong in saying that male-based pronouns are the default pronouns to use. This is false. Therefore, I used the word false. Just because you don't use the word false to describe peoples' arguments doesn't change the fact that you won't accept peoples' arguments as adequate and therefore won't accept the consensus formed by them. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

In fact, through this discussion, your only good argument has been to say that the source of the current lead image is poor; this is a real problem, but an easy one to fix. [2] uses the same image and is considered a reliable source (and discusses her appearance). This should fix the problem. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

To me, the worst part about this whole ordeal was the fact that you accused me of operating on my opinions and arguments and ignoring others' (even though back then you were doing exactly that with mine and User:Curtaintoad's). Now that my stance has much more support and you continue to be the only person in support of the scan, you are doing exactly what you decried earlier. It is fine to disagree with people. It is not fine to give yourself an authority over the consensus because you think that your argument is superior. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, the third image is irrelvant. The second one, has its utility as it show the American vision about the character; however, I think it can be more useful placed in the section "Gender". On other hand, with it removal the article loses nothing. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I was pinged here via talk page. I find the third image irrelevant as it is discussed in the article itself and does nothing to contribute to the encyclopedic value of the article. Everything shown in the third image can be just as effectively explained by moving the caption into the article body and eliminating the image. The second image, I feel, would be better served by trimming the text from the image and adding it into the gender section of the article with a citation to the game manual. With this said, I find the attitudes displayed by some of the editors here to be abhorrent and I'll simply be dropping my opinion here (only because I was alerted to this) and I'll be disengaging from this discussion. Apologies. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 04:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Categories

Though it's (obviously) appropriate to discuss the gender issue within the article, categories should only be used for unambiguous (certain) classifications. Though there's plenty of material to suggest 'male', and arguably more to suggest 'female', there's no explicit first-party source that says, 'transsexual'. As such, both the 'transsexual' and 'LGBT' categories are inappropriate (note that this is true irrespective of what consensus might be reached on things like pronouns). Birdo may be male. Birdo may be female. Birdo may be transsexual. None of those things equate to "definitely is". (Similarly, I'd also suggest ditching the 'female' category as well. Even if Nintendo has tried to cement Birdo's status as a female more recently, there's still too much historical ambiguity to warrant such an unqualified classification) 72.88.42.215 (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand the concern, but reliable sources consistently identify that Birdo is a trans woman, and therefore the LGBT categories and female category is appropriate. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 05:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I suppose there are two concerns then:

1. If it's so clear and unambiguous, why is there an entire section devoted to discussing the (apparently non-existant) ambiguity?
2. Could you please refer me to one of those reliable sources that unequivocally defines Birdo as being a trans woman? (Note that this is one of the few cases where a third party source doesn't apply; those are only good for proving that Birdo is described that way; not that Birdo is)

Unless you can address both of those, a category is certainly inappropriate. Categories aren't for "descriptors that may or may not apply to the subject", or even "descriptors that many people believe apply to the subject".

For comparison, though BLP is also a factor in such matters, a similar rule applies to adding LGBT categories to biographies; even to, for example, biographies of women who have current girlfriends. It doesn't matter if there are dozens of reliable articles describing said subjects as being lesbian. It doesn't matter if it's painfully obvious. Categories don't come with qualifiers, explanations, or citations. They're overt declarations of absolute fact. They require a slightly higher threshold. 72.88.42.215 (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You may not have noted this, but this article is not a biography; Birdo is a fictional character. So it doesn't make much sense to ponder too much on what she "really is", as she is not real. As for categories, they're navigational aids, certainly not absolute declarations of fact; Wikipedia is not Aristothelian, and they're a very poor ontology to be used in any other way. We don't even require them to be sourced most of the time. Diego (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm... going to just assume you didn't intend that nearly as condescending as it came across...

Yes, I'm quite aware that a fictional character isn't 'really' anything. That isn't the point. That doesn't even make a point.

Let's go with something popular lately: Tyrion Lannister is a 'Fictional character with dwarfism'. He is not a 'Fictional giant', or a 'Fictional bagel'. The fact that he isn't real doesn't change any of those statements.

Nintendo has never explicitly said, "trans woman". If I am incorrect about that fact, then feel free to correct me. The fact remains that all of Nintendo's material in the last several pieces of work have pointed to either 'female' or 'shrug'.

I'm uncertain where you got the idea that categories can just be slapped on arbitrarily, whether they fit or not. However, categories can be (and routinely are) removed all the time for not reflecting cited material within the articles.

So... yeah... is someone going to come up with a reference that actually supports the inclusion? Or a line of reasoning other than implying that all articles about fiction are automatically wide open to whatever interpretation editors desire? 72.88.42.215 (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Let me remind you that neither Diego nor myself have ever inserted our opinion into the article's contents. Recognized third-party reliable sources have, and the fact of the matter is that they are just as valuable in determining truth as Nintendo is for this subject. In fact, Nintendo has never disavowed the mention of Birdo's gender from the SMB2 manual. It may not appear in Super Mario All-Stars or Super Mario Advance's manuals, but Nintendo has never denied what the manual said. A representative of Nintendo made a statement on Birdo's gender. Smash Bros. has made reference to Birdo's gender. Captain Rainbow had you prove her gender as one of the in-game quests (which some find offensive as it kind of makes a joke out of trans people but that's neither here nor there). These are all games published by Nintendo. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

A lack of evidence to the contrary (or lack of refutation) is not evidence (somethingsomething absence of evidence is not evidence of absence something).

No, the opinions of other third-party sources are not as valuable when it comes to defining Nintendo's creation. 'Reliable' isn't even a useful adjective in this context: They're reliably reporting on their own opinion; they aren't trying to reflect the creators' intention.

So, even if only for the sake of thoroughness, could you please directly cite the specific source that you think makes it clear that Nintendo's position is that Birdo is a trans woman? Even if you think it's obvious. Even if you think you've provided enough. Even if you think I'm being pedantic. Could you please just provide an explicit reference as to Nintendo's belief that she's a trans woman? 72.88.42.215 (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand. Nintendo has published three official works that make direct reference to Birdo as a trans woman. Smash Bros., Captain Rainbow, and Super Mario Bros. 2. That is, of course, irrelevant, as your argument flies in the face of how Wikipedia works. A third-party source cannot call Birdo a bagel, but can call Birdo a trans woman because Nintendo states that in the absolutely most literal way by saying that Birdo wants to be considered a girl. These third-party sources are making statements that rely directly on statements Nintendo has made about the character. They didn't simply make them up. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm seeing an amazing number of 'Citation Needed's, and the only direct reference I spotted was Kohler's piece mentioning the suspicion that Birdo is male, which is then disproved (or 'disproved') by finding his or her vibrator. That one... isn't exactly clear (on a few levels). So, could you please include a specific link to a reference that you think clears this up? A direct one?

I can appreciate that you feel it's unnecesary, but I'm asking super-duper nice for a link to an explicit reference. Ideally one where Nintendo explicitly used the terms, "transsexual" or "trans woman". 72.88.42.215 (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Get back to me on that when I'm expected to provide you "explicit" uses of the terms "transsexual" or "trans woman" to describe the character. I'll call the direct reference to Birdo wanting to be referred to as a woman - an official statement by Nintendo - adequate. You can choose to ignore that, but it's not your right to ignore it while continuing to ask for exactly what I've provided. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Uh... you claimed, "Nintendo has published three official works that make direct reference to Birdo as a trans woman.".

I couldn't find the reference for Nintendo making "direct reference to Birdo as a trans woman" in Captain Rainbow or Smash Bros. Assuming your statement to be true, I'd hoped you could provide those references. If your statement wasn't true, then I don't understand how that's my fault.

That leaves Super Mario Bros. 2. For the sake of argument, let's ignore:

1. It was from a manual, rather than the game.
2. Nintendo made the conscious decision to remove it.
3. It's far from a "direct reference" to being a trans woman; but rather something that's (easily) inferred.
4. Every single in-game reference Nintendo has made to Birdo's gender has been either female or 'indeterminate'.

Should we be using the Japanese version, or the English? All the english version said was, "He thinks he's a girl and he spits eggs from his mouth. He'd rather be called Birdetta". If you think "He thinks he's a girl" is the actual meaning of transgender... uh... actually, no. I don't believe you believe that. What (exactly) did the Japanese version say? Not a paraphrase, but an actual quote? What's more, I don't even believe we can entirely ignore those other four points above.

Come on. Meet me halfway. You're making some very clear claims, with very little room for interpretation. If it's that cut and dry, then a citation should be easy. The burden isn't on proving that Birdo isn't transgender or transsexual; it's on proving that she is. Not 'might be'. Not 'implied to be, so long as you insert a bit of interpretation, in material that's since been completely removed'. 'Is'. 72.88.42.215 (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not in the mood to have a discussion that would involve declaring an official work by Nintendo (a manual) to not be considered an official work by Nintendo. Please do not continue to seek examples of something I've factually shown already. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Declaring that you've done something is not the same as doing it.

I've been incredibly nice asking for specific references. I've been very polite in asking for links. You haven't. You said there were three direct references. When pressed for proof, that changed to one. When asked for the original text, you declared that you didn't want to talk about it.

Seriously, it shouldn't be so difficult to collaborate on something as trivial as an article for a videogame character. 72.88.42.215 (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

72.88, you do realize you could have simply been 'bold' and edited the article, and THEN explained if anyone objected, rather than posting here first --- and obviously inviting a bicker-fest. Right?

Hippie, you may not agree with 72.88. But you can see the argument, right? An ambiguous status doesn't really lend itself to unambiguous categorization. For what it's worth, I think you made a pretty good argument; just not a concrete one. And I think that's actually 72.88's point.

Here's the $64,000 question: how do we make eeeverybody happy? We need to make the article accurate, but want to avoid trans erasure, right?

I've decided to 'be bold', and removed the categories. BUT I've also added one that I think you can both agree with. Irrespective of whether Birdo's male, female, male-to-female, gender-fluid, or anything else, the way that LGBT is portrayed in the media is entirely pertinent, yet? That vibrator thing (is that seriously what it said/implied?) makes the point quite strongly. Problem solved? Or, failing that, are both of you equally happy/unhappy? 139.57.240.18 (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I think an argument could've happened either way, but I might have been insensitive to the subject matter. I probably should have looked at the talk page, realized it was a touchy subject, and looked for an alternative, rather than just declaring that it should be outright wiped out.

I'd say it was a fair compromise, but I don't even see it as a 'compromise'. This article unambiguously discusses an aspect of LGBT representation in media. I don't know if NARH will approve, but I'm... hopeful? 72.88.42.215 (talk) 01:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you please demonstrate to me that providing sources would result in you not saying "meh, don't count" - which you effectively did with an example of Nintendo being declared as not adequate? If you can't, why should I spend energy finding you this information? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

... how would I demonstrate that? Why would I have to? If you want to include material, then you need to be able to cite it? And pointing out that Nintendo strongly disagrees with your interpretation of Nintendo isn't quite the same thing as, "meh, don't count".

If Captain Rainbow said Birdo's a trans woman, that should be easy to cite. If you don't want to cite it, don't claim it. Since you were happy to paraphrase my supposed sentiment as a quote, here's yours: "I don't believe you'd accept my proof, so I won't even bother giving it in the first place. Therefore, I proved my point!" Doesn't feel good, does it?

sigh. Seriously, I want to make us both comfortable here. And I just finished promising I'd try to communicate better, so I probably should (for... at least a day).

Look, it's my opinion that the material is muddy at best. In a translation of a documentation made for a port of a transformation of a game (because that's what SMB2 really is), it included a line about "thinks he's a girl". I can see why you'd infer 'transgender' from that, but, technically, it is an inference, which borders on synthesis. By comparison, Nintendo's explicitly referred to her as female in other works (with no qualifiers), and has taken out that one, single line that implies transgender. It seems like there's a lot of material contradicting that single sentence. It might be slightly easier to figure out with the Japanese text (that wasn't a rhetorical request; I really don't know the Japanese text), but I really don't know either way.

I'm thinking that, if it's muddy, then it probably shouldn't be a category. I'm totally cool with 139.57.240.18's suggestion. That isn't muddy. So, I guess what I'm asking is... what's your exact position? Is it that Birdo is clearly supposed to be transgendered, by design, so that means the category should be there, or the category should probably be applied to any character that might qualify? Or something else entirely? Help me to understand your position, so I (possibly) can address your concerns? 72.88.42.215 (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

That is not what synthesis means. Multiple reliable third-party sources interpreted trans from that. They are the foundation of Wikipedia. That said, I will thank you to stop lying and claiming that I'm not citing anything. Please rephrase as this:

"I do not accept the source that you absolutely, definitely cited from Nintendo as acceptable."

Thank you. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 03:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You need to be seriously careful before throwing around accusations like, "lying". Assume good faith. Comment on content, not contributors. And refrain from ALL personal attacks. These are not suggestions; these are instructions. Follow. Them.

Third party sources comment on their interpretations of the character's gender identity. This is entirely appropriate for the content. Included categories need to be more definitive than that. Only first-party is appropriate for describing how Nintendo chose to create Nintendo's character.

There was one piece of Nintendo's content (a translation of a documentation of a transformation of a game) that implied transgender. That one piece of content has been redacted. Furthermore, the only unambiguous content since then has been female; with no acknowledgement of, or suggestion of, a transgender identity.

I tried bloody hard to cooperate. I tried asking whether you took exception to the suggestion that it was a muddy topic, or to whether or not that should affect categorization. You chose to ignore the question entirely, but I'm leaving the question open to someone else who may actually wish to contribute.

I'm asking, one last time, for an explicit reference. Not some redacted nonsense. Not something that requires that you infer (i.e. synthesize) the 'real' meaning. An actual reference. You claimed to have three. If that's true, list them. Something that backs up the claim of "direct reference to Birdo as a trans woman".

If you can't do that, then stop reverting good faith attempts. Open up an RFC if you want to, but you need to start assuming good faith, start cooperating, and start following the rules of conduct around here. 72.88.42.215 (talk) 04:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Please do not use pretend rules for Wikipedia. There has never been a requirement that categories be based exclusively on official statements by the corporations. What is established is that third-party sources are acceptable for use. Stop dictating the rules for this discussion.

Until the day I die, I will not respond to a massive imposition. You are making demands of me that no Wikipedian must ever fulfill in order for their argument to be valid. I do not have to provide an explicit example of Nintendo directly describing Birdo as a "trans woman." This is fact. I will no longer acknowledge your demands of any examples of this because the examples do not have to exist, ever.

Here's your burden: Nintendo, in their entire history, has never claimed that she is not trans. One of the first statements in existence about the character is that Birdo identifies as a woman. Following this, numerous citations - found on this article - took this and interpreted it to mean "this character is trans." Wired and GamesRadar in particular (the latter has several articles that call Birdo 'transgender').

I must also request that you don't continue to lie by pretending to seek cooperation. You want to cooperate so much that you blindly revert my edits. Explain to me why a broad LGBT category is appropriate (and it is - there is absolutely no way I am allowing that category to be removed because a huge number of the sources this very article uses explicitly backs that up), and yet LGBT in video games is not? Also explain how she doesn't fit into the female category. Your reversion is utterly ridiculous and without any reason. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You really need to stop throwing around accusations about lying. WP:NPA and WP:AGF aren't just suggestions. Besides, it just plain doesn't help anything. I'm not going to suddenly proclaim, "what?!? I was lying the whole time?!? I had no idea! THANK you for informing me, so that I may stop!" Try to accept that I am sincere. Maybe I'm a complete idiot; but, if so, I'm a sincere idiot.

I never claimed there was a rule that categories be based off of official statements by corporations. I'm saying that categories need to be objectively accurate. When it comes to pieces of work created by an entity, that entity has a greater entitlement and validity for specifically defining said piece of work. Third parties can't override how a creator defines his or her own work.
If it were based on third party observations/interpretations, then Dumbledore would probably not have a category for being gay, and Gabrielle (from Xena) would.
Ignoring the unnecessary drama of "Until the day I die"... what "massive imposition"? You declared, "Nintendo has published three official works that make direct reference to Birdo as a trans woman."

• If that's to be considered a valid argument, then obviously it'd hinge on whether or not it's actually true. The only way for me to know whether or not it's true is if I can verify it for myself.
• If it's not an argument that you're trying to make, then just say so!

If it's important to your argument, then you have an obligation to prove it. Because if I'm supposed to draw a conclusion based on a specific point, that point needs to be factual. If you elect to not prove it, then nobody's going to even try to force you, but obviously that also renders the argument tied to it invalid. That's not me making some grand imposition on you. That's you tying your argument to a claim, and me thinking I should draw my own conclusion based on the same (alleged) material.
Nintendo, in their entire history, has never stated Birdo is not a pretzel. Is it my burden to prove she's not a pretzel?
Yeah yeah yeah, I know, that one's a little glib. So here's a more helpful one: Reliable third party sources call Birdo a bird. Reliable third party sources call Birdo a dinosaur. Which, if either, category should be added to the article? Fictional dinosaurs? Fictional birds? Both? I'd say neither. Because, while although one could make an argument for either, and even though it's very easy to find reliable third party sources characterizing her as either (and both of them are even mentioned in the article), Birdo isn't clearly either, so neither category applies. See my argument? Even if you don't agree, do you understand it?
To address your point, no, the first mention did not use the words, "identifies as a woman". The first translated documentation said, "He thinks he's a girl". Ignoring that said reference only used the pronoun, "He", I can see how one can infer transgender, but do not believe it's a clear specific statement of transgender. (And, again, that was later redacted. And replaced by being simply female. And replaced by being indeterminate. And... are we seeing all of the 'and's? Seriously, that's why I'm saying it's muddy)
I did not revert blindly. I accepted the other IP's reasoning. I still do. It's disingenuous to suggest that a clear reason hasn't been given for both.
For the third time (second by me): Category:LGBT_characters_in_video_games applies to LGBT characters. Category:LGBT_portrayals_in_media applies to LGBT portrayals. Using the former suggests that Birdo (the character) is objectively transgender. Using the latter says that the Birdo article addresses the way LGBT persons are portrayed in media. The former is debatable; I'd say the latter is factual. That's why the latter is an appropriate category, and the other isn't. Had there been a category of, "LGBT portrayals in video games", then of course I'd accept that more specific category.
The reason I removed the "female" category is that her gender is still, technically, unclear. Nintendo's used male, female, and indeterminate. I personally just use female pronouns because... why not? Most material is either cis or trans female. Honestly, it's that "indeterminate" one that gives me pause for the category.
And if you do accept third party sources for things like that, then look at the quotes in the article! I mean, "That's a Dude!?"?
So, yeah, I have reasons for both. A tiny bit of 'good faith' could've cleared that up real easy...
(And now that I've addressed all of your concerns, explained how I'm acting in good faith even though that's supposed to be assumed, explained precisely why I was asking for references, and in absolutely every way imaginable fully explained my position, reasoning, logic, etc. Can we pretty please make this about the article instead of about me? And could I get those references? Or otherwise a concession that I don't need to pretend there are three pieces of work in question? And can I get an actual answer to my question over precisely what point it is we're disagreeing over?)
In the meantime, since both the other IP editor and myself have fully explained the position, and in the absence of any resolution, I'll... be reverting. Seriously, feel free to call for an RFC if you disagree, but I think I'm making a very cogent point, and I can't get any clear line of reasoning to address it. 72.88.42.215 (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Talks about respect, disrespects the very idea of consensus. You are not entitled to "boldly" (it isn't bold to ignore your fellow Wikipedians' objections to your controversial changes) change the article to your liking, especially when multiple users find your changes controversial. Knock it off. This discussion won't exist until you stop trying to assume that you're right and that the article must change. The burden is on you, who introduced it, not on I or others who have lived with these categories for years. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 05:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Basically, undo your edit and we can have a civil discussion that may or may not result in consensus forming in your favour. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 05:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Um... Two for, two against.

• For:
  • Me, based on the reasons I've explained ad nauseum
  • 139.57.240.18, based on an attempt to resolve my desire to only include categories that are objectively accurate with avoiding 'trans erasure'
• Against:
  • Diego, based on "they're navigational aids", "We don't even require them to be sourced most of the time", and "Birdo is a fictional character"
    • Being navigational aids isn't really relevant (though I'm happy to be corrected on that; it's possible I'm missing the point)
    • Absolutely all material on Wikipedia can be removed if not properly sourced. Categories are removed all the time if they aren't supported by the contents of the articles.
    • Yes. Birdo is a fictional character. This point is moot.
  • You, based on... see, that's the problem. I don't understand your actual point.
    • Birdo may be transgendered. One can interpret one single piece of Nintendo's documentation that way. ...and? Is it that she definitely is, thus requiring the category? Is it that she only may be, but you think the category should be applied to all articles that might apply?

So, yeah. Two for, two against. You refuse to cooperate (and are now actually explicitly stating that you won't even attempt a civil discussion until after you get the edit you want). So, I'm sorry, but I don't understand how any reasonable person could ever possibly give equal weight to an argument that you refuse to explain, when you're also literally refusing to participate. No participation = no !vote.

139.57.240.18 made the edit, but I'm the one who's being overly bold by restoring it? I... don't understand that line of reasoning.

Also, um... "The burden is on you, who introduced it, not on I or others who have lived with these categories for years." WP:OWN?72.88.42.215 (talk) 06:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

1. I do not agree with the compromise. In fact, the fact is that I don't have the right at this moment to revert it, which means it's literally not a compromise at all because it objectively ignores those who disagree with your change. Continue to keep the article this way, but don't call it a compromise.
2. A 50/50 consensus for and against is my point. You don't have consensus. You not understanding or agreeing with the argument does not entitle you to weigh the value of the arguments. As it stands, the change can't be a matter of consensus but a controversial difference in opinion.
3. Birdo is covered to a non-trivial degree in third-party sources as an LGBT character (including a Huffington Post article, though it's not used in the article yet), so for the purposes of navigation, one can assume that a non-trivial number of people would expect to be able to find Birdo through LGBT categories. No? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

1. I'm still unclear on what makes it my change. Yes, I've restored it, but... uh... yeah. I'll call it a compromise. I've yet to see an explanation of why, for example, Category:LGBT_portrayals_in_media is a bad addition. Why was it removed? For the sake of argument, let's say that Birdo is transgendered. What do you think is more relevant in that context: that Birdo wears a pink bow, or that Birdo's gender identity is the subject of ridicule and vibrator jokes?
2. The only part of Diego's point I might be misinterpreting is the 'navigational aid' part. Of the other two components, one is objectively false, and the other is entirely moot. Feel free to explain how I'm misunderstanding something there. And you've declared that you don't want to discuss it, so... it's either 2:1 (including Diego), or 2:0 (when you only accept arguments based on correct categorization). Also, decisions aren't decided by sheer vote tally anyway. (Aaand, Diego hasn't even yet objected to the compromise. So, um... why are you assuming he'll be against swapping out one LGBT category for another?)
3. I don't know how to answer that, because I don't understand the argument. Why would people be specifically looking for Birdo that way? Why would the presence of third-party coverage trump Nintendo's own right to define their own creations? I'm really willing to discuss this point, but I think you need to spell it out for me. Explain like I'm 5? And a little slow? 72.88.42.215 (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

As one final point, seriously, why not just open up an RFC? I think that categories should only be used when they're 'objectively accurate' (rather than 'possibly accurate', 'accurate, subject to a specific interpretation', 'contrary to first-party references, but more or less in line with what more third party sources believe than do not', etc.). Either 139.57.240.18 agrees, or at least thinks this version is equally valid. For the sake of argument, I'm going to assume that Diego won't approve of swapping in one LGBT category for another: even four people still isn't really that much. Particularly since people tend to ignore that 'other stuff exists' rule, and might end up using this as a precedent. So why not do an RFC? Or, heck, just ask for advice at the village pump? I'd argue that even four people agreeing wouldn't be a fantastic consensus. So how can three or four people disagreeing form one? 72.88.42.215 (talk) 07:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. You do the legwork. Why should I go through the pains of creating an RfC for a change that you want to make (but have yet to make with any level of legitimacy)? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 07:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

... I... believe I've made my point quite well. I think I've addressed the issue adequately. The current (yes, I realize 'current' will likely change, sooner or later) version of the article is acceptable to me. I've found someone who agrees with me (or with whom I agree... whichever). I've been as cordial as a cherry, and as cooperative as humanly possible.

I don't actually know how to answer that. "See this article? I think that categories should be reserved for only uncontroversial classifications, just like they are on just about every other article. And just like they currently are on this article. Would anyone care to comment?"

I mean... it's 240.18's change. I happen to accept it. And it's the current state of the article. And you haven't actually explained the lack of "legitimacy". For example, what's the harm in using the 'LGBT portrayals in media' category instead?

Just for the sake of argument, assuming that both of our sides were equally valid (I personally don't believe this, but I suppose you'd say the same, yes?): The 'LGBT character' one is one that some of us believe is congruent with the article. Is the 'LGBT portrayals in media' category one that we all can accept as congruent? I certainly can. 240.18 certainly can. Do you believe that Birdo's videogame appearances don't have any connection to how LGBT is portrayed in media?

Note that I'm not asking if you think that one category is better than the other... do you believe that the LGBT portrayals one at least also 'fits' (even if 'inferior', or whatever)? If the 'LGBT characters' category didn't even exist, would you think that the LGBT portrayals one was a reasonable substitute? 72.88.42.215 (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course it fits, but there's a less broad category that exists in the parent category. Further, it's not the current state of the article. Someone can't change something and declare it the current state because it's been that way for eight minutes. It's a recent, disputed change, and thus it should be achieved through consensus. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 07:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

All versions require consensus. There's no "default" version. And if there was going to be a 'default version', then it'd be the one that everyone involved could at least agree was accurate. Maybe not ideal. Maybe not superior. But accurate.

Everyone can agree that the 'Portrayals' version is both accurate and fits. You believe that increased specificity is warranted, but still have yet to even explain why.

For the... how many'th time?... Is your problem with removing the 'LGBT character' category because:

1. You feel that the category clearly and objectively fits, by whatever criteria or metric you're using
2. You feel that the category might only subjectively fit, but that it's still better to include it anyway

I've asked you over and over and over and over again, and you've constantly ignored the question. It's literally impossible to achieve a full consensus if you ignore the questions. But it's even more impossible to achieve consensus if you won't even agree on what the bloody question is!

If you're the sole owner and proprietor and arbiter of this article (sure. why not ignore WP:OWN?), and you're the one I have to convince before you will permit a discussion as the precursor to possibly entertaining the option of changing the article... then how the heck can I even achieve that much if you refuse to even tell me which of the two points it is that I need to convince you of?!? It's physically impossible. You aren't even moving the goalposts, because the goalposts were never put down in the first place!

Sorry, but until you actually acknowledge the question, I'm going to revert. I've been open and clear. I accepted a third party's suggested revision. I like it; I think it fits better than what I was suggesting. You don't own this article. Nobody does. Everybody has to prove their side. 72.88.42.215 (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to. I will. I couldn't sleep and made the mistake of checking my email. This is just sad. I actually totally understand the 'female' argument, but I also understand the 'indeterminate' argument. But I don't understand the need for bullying. Also, everybody involved realizes this is just an article for an obscure videogame character on a semi-encyclopedia, right? I'm not sure it's worth getting so worked up over (said the guy who's suddenly very sad over it). :( 139.57.240.18 (talk) 08:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't even care so much about what's being changed anymore and more the fact that one user has made a point of forcing one version of the article over the other. In a dispute, we revert to the version from before the discussion, we do not stick with the disputed change. That's all I'm asking, and it's frustrating that I can't even get something that basic and see this discussion end by consensus rather than a vote. I have made an attempt to refocus the debate back onto the actual subject and not differences of opinion, but the fact that this extremely objectionable decision to change the article before consensus has been established is preventing discussion from occurring. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

There is one source that calls her gender indeterminate, one portion of Nintendo. What of the sources that do determine gender? As it stands, one single game in all of Nintendo canon calls Birdo of "indeterminate gender". This can be used to demonstrate the gender confusion, but it shouldn't be used as the sole, definitive source of Birdo's gender when games such as Mario Tennis and Mario Superstar Baseball call Birdo a female. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm super tired of how ridiculous Birdo's gender confusion creates this talk page and wastes my time. My objection is that something that has stood for many years has been decided by a non-consensus of two people to be an acceptable change. Is it acceptable? Perhaps yes. And I would love to support an actual factual consensus, not a bold decision to change the categories. Hell, I've even made compromises myself by agreeing to remove the trans category, and that is what makes it so frustrating - it's a compromise that has nothing to do with my views or objections whatsoever. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

(DOUBLE Edit conflict) To 240.18: Thank you! I was having a hard time building up the nerve to try for that third revert. It feels too much like giving up.

To NARH: False. In a dispute, there is no correct version. If discussion is entered into freely and openly, and true cooperation exists, the 'correct version' will find itself.

It's ridiculous to suggest that the 'wrong version' is "preventing discussion". If the only way you can discuss something is if you first get your way, you aren't discussing; you're controlling. In any event, there's still nothing preventing you from addressing those questions. No matter how many times we get derailed, I'll still sincerely read and consider any argument presented. (Yup. I'll still keep assuming that cooperation is possible, eventually!)

(response to the second EC): I don't understand how you think time makes something more valid. If something's incorrect or inappropriate, then it is. More importantly, if something can be improved, then it should be.

So maybe my approach sucks. Fine. Then work with me to both improve the article and maybe also improve my approach. But this isn't cooperation/collaboration/respect. 72.88.42.215 (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It can't be a compromise if I can't get answers onto why the compromise exists. Why is Smash being prioritized over the number of works that define Birdo as female, or Birdo's physical appearance and mannerisms? Why is it important to broaden the LGBT category instead of keeping it focused on video games? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Look, for what it's worth, even though I don't think the 'female' category belongs (if only because of the 'indeterminate' thing), I'll accept that your argument in support of it is entirely rational (two conflicting opinions can both be rational, after all), so I did a partial revert to support that category. I don't have to agree with it, but that's part of that 'compromise' stuff, right? 72.88.42.215 (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I know what compromise is - I already compromised when I agreed to remove the trans category. So remember that I've accepted your argument on the vagueness of her trans status and allowed the removal of that one category, just as you have my argument and re-added that category. My issue is that despite the quality of your argument, boldly adding/removing categories that are being actively disputed implies a dismissal of the arguments made. So now that we only have one issue, let's discuss this. Why is it important to categorize it in such a vague way? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, I'll just say that despite this not being a valid excuse, my (typically short) temperament is all the shorter today because I've been trying to get over a pretty crippling cold for the past week. It's made me a tad bit impatient and irritable. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe that, relying solely on the creator's definitions, whether Birdo is transgendered, or simply retconned to always having been strictly female is debatable. For anything that is reasonably controversial, I feel that categories are inappropriate.

Irrespective of whether or not Birdo actually does qualify as LGBT, I feel that the third party coverage (particularly the negative aspects), and the issues like whether or not she's allowed to use the women's restroom and throwing in vibrator jokes all sums up to a very significant portrait of how gender issues are portrayed in the media. As such, I'd say that category is not controversial.

Basically, "LGBT character" requires first accepting as fact that Birdo is transgendered. "LGBT Portrayals" only requires accepting that the Birdo article addresses how gender issues are portrayed.

Since I believe we agree on the portrayal part, it's really just whether or not the 'character' part applies, right? So then, is your issue that you think Birdo is objectively transgendered, or that you don't think categories need to be so rigid? 72.88.42.215 (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) I was in a reasonably bad car accident today (escaped injury, but looks like they may declare the car totaled) and still can't sleep in spite of it being 5am here. I choose to believe it hasn't affected my temperament in the slightest. (That's my story and I'm sticking with it. Grobble grobble grobble) 72.88.42.215 (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I envy your temperament. Anyway, my issue is that we differ on what is acceptable for use in this article to establish the validity of categories. Firstly, the navigation point is significant; moving Birdo to a broader category makes it more difficult for users to find a more complete collection of information related to LGBT in video games. Categories shouldn't just exist for established facts by official sources, categories should also acknowledge public views. If a fictional creature was identified by a fair number of people as a dinosaur, even if the official works never outright used that word, it would be of value to call it a dinosaur. Of course, only if it was a reasonable categorization (ie, Walter White will never be in Category:Fictional dinosaurs). In this case, due to the fact that so many of the RSes discuss Birdo in the contest of her being gay or trans, it seems evident that her notability comes largely from the fact that a lot of people view her as LGBT. It's certainly more difficult to establish a category when the situation isn't as cut and dry, but there is surely enough coverage of her in the context of her being G or T to justify treating her as an LGBT character. I mean, if the creators explicitly demonstrated that she was cis, that would be one thing; as it is, it's not controversial in that it contradicts information by Nintendo, so I just don't see the issue with identifying the character as trans in the article.

Also, I think what might have triggered my temper to go lower is that I misinterpreted your citation needed mentions to be sarcastic quips against what I said. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 09:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I, for one, would welcome a Methosaurus, and would love for it to be included in Better Call Saul (I'm just sayin'...).

In that case, I think the issue is a disagreement on how categories work and/or what they're for. I can understand wanting Birdo to pop up if someone was browsing for LGBT characters, but from the flip side, it seems wrong to see what (to me) seems like a concrete descriptor on the article itself.

I guess it boils down to whether one values them more as a navigational aid, or a complement to articles. Perhaps wait for opinions tomorrow? (I might actually try getting an hour or two of this 'sleep' stuff before the insurance folks start calling) 72.88.42.215 (talk) 09:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Both rest and 3O/4O sound good. Enjoy your sleep. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 09:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Revert

I've reverted New Age Retro's wholesale removal of content, introducing original research in the form of 'misgendering' the character, when no source explicitly states that, and synthesizing the source to be more PC, to the extent that certain quotes by direct individuals are euphemized from their original wording (which cannot be changed) to a more flattering wording. If the sources are brutal, then we are too. There's no BLP protection nor WP:MOS#IDENTITY for fictional characters. The sources ultimately rule. Tutelary (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not change the wording for any quotations. I removed extraneous quotes. Query, if IGN's view of Barret Wallace was that they hated him for being a [racial epithet], would this be considered valid reception?

To be quite honest, the approach of "we are [brutal]" sounds like a juvenile approach to objective coverage. The fact that the character is not a real-world figure does not mean that there is no harm to including reception or quotations that are blatantly bigoted. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, there is no source for any 'misgendering' of the character. That's full on original research by you. You removed 7400 kilobytes of text from mostly reliable sources, and when I was referring to the brutal remark, I was referring to WP:NOTCENSORED. If you're trying to remove text based on it only being offensive or objectionable, that's not permitted. Additionally, terms such as 'cis woman' are also not supported by sources. And for the query remark, that depends ultimately on the characteristics of what the remark had endured, how many reliable sources picked up on it, and the encylopedic intro used to create it. Merci, other stuff exists. The fact that the character is not a real-world figure does not mean that there is no harm to including reception or quotations that are blatantly bigoted. Please elaborate on which policy or guideline instructs us to ignore reliable source coverage because they are 'blatantly bigoted'. Hint hint, there isn't. Tutelary (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

"Cis woman" and "misgendering" are basic terminologies. Captain Rainbow literally features Birdo in a role where she is claiming to be female, and everyone else is accusing her of being male. "refer to (someone, especially a transgender person) using a word, especially a pronoun or form of address, that does not correctly reflect the gender with which they identify." The literal definition of misgendering is what happens in Captain Rainbow. I literally need to do nothing more than to cite the game. It is actually the only valid interpretation of what happened in Captain Rainbow, so you will have to clarify why what I changed was in the spirit of "original research." - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to report exactly what you're attempting to portray in the article? That's what the original research policy requires to not be considered original research. Tutelary (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Captain Rainbow is my source - the portion of the game that features Birdo also features characters imprisoning her, and accusing her of being a man. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about transphobia but we can't removed most of the sourced content from reception because it's against Wikipedia:Offensive. However, we can soften and/or remove some of it per the same policy, which states "Provide as much information with as little offense as possible". What's the de facto information in the reception? That she was badly received for her "gender confusion". We can summarize it, right? Maybe we can group to something like "Birdo gender has led to criticism by X, Y, Z sources"? Or we cant just remove, for example, UGO less sexiest and ScrewAttack ugly; are they really relevant? What others are not that focused on the subject or relevant? We can discuss. For the gender's question, however, yes, we have a guideline: MOS:IDENTITY. And it reads: "An exception to this is made for terms relating to gender. In such cases, we favor self-designation, even when source usage would indicate otherwise." Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead and summarize it. Be WP:BOLD and all of that. I just had a few problems with his original edit changing some things around and original research. I'll respond to your edits if you make them. Tutelary (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

What about going source by source? The two sources I mentioned above, can we remove them? My next suggestion is to whether remove Antista's "first gaming crush" or to summarize the three articles he wrote into "In three different articles, GamesRadar editor Chris Antista discussed her gender confusion in the manual and stated that the revelation was similar to when 'lead singer of Judas Priest came out to a legion homophobic metalheads dressed to the nines in skin tight leather left wondering if their dicks will fall off.' Maybe even shorten the Judas Priest part. What do you think? Do you also have suggestion, New Age Retro Hippie, Tutelary? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Go right ahead. I don't like large, wholesale changes but small incremental ones like you're doing. That's not why I reverted New Age, just how I think it should be done. Additionally, sadly, New Age has quit Wikipedia. Tutelary (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

he/she/they

Generally those who do not identify with their asumed birth gender (did I say that right? The very last thing I want to do is offend anyone) but GENERAL people who refer to them selves as "Non-Cisgender" prefer the term "THEY" instead of he/she.

There are others who dispute/dismiss the whole issue of gender identity who would be confused by such wording.

I would like to suggest that we go over this article, and simply replace every casual he/she of this article THAT IS NOT SPECIFICALY DISCUSSING BIRDO'S GENDER/GENDER-IDENTITY, and simply replace it with Birdo's proper name.

It might not read perfectly, but it will make things just generally more polite.

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.124.147 (talk)

Hm, I've never though about that. That seems a clever solution, I guess. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm a non-binary person who doesn't prefer singular 'they' over he or she, so this logic is busted -_- ~Mable (chat) 07:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

First Trans Character

I believe this is incorrect. Doesn't Samus Aran predate her by 2 years? (1986 vs 1988) Lathomas64 (talk)