Template talk:Article pronouns

On "preferred"

While some do have a ranked preference for pronouns, many trans people would argue that their pronouns are not "preferred" but "mandatory", or would be if they could enforce their use. (The same goes for most cis people; they just aren't confronted with misgendering nearly as often.) Though it's not a big deal as "preferred" is only in the title and documentation of this template, not in the text it generates, I'd suggest coming up with a different title. Funcrunch (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: Yeah, I've seen this discussion before in various places, and I don't disagree. I began with this title because that's what's used most, at least in writing that I've seen. Part of the problem is that some wording options that work fine in blogs, classrooms, etc. (often involving a self-ref such as, "my pronouns", or "I use the pronouns...", let's say) wouldn't work here as a template name. If you want to suggest something, I don't mind changing it; then this would become a redirect (or that one would). But see following discussion, which may make this point moot. Mathglot (talk) 21:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I thought of {{Article pronouns}}, although that has the downside that "article", unfortunately, is also a word for a part of speech, so when I see "article" and "pronouns" together, I think of parts of speech, and not the meaning of article that we mean here.

The #Terminology section of the article Preferred gender pronoun (with redirect Personal gender pronoun) echoes your concern. Unfortunately, the second one doesn't work I don't think, for specifying what we're doing in an article. Also, it's getting kind of long. Still thinking... Mathglot (talk) 22:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot, I second Funcrunch on both counts: Pronouns are "used" not "preferred." As in: I "use" they/them pronouns. But the key thing is that "preferred" isn't on the generated text. Per below, it seems like you might be sorting out a merge of sorts, in which case I think the "Pronoun Notice" language is more appropriate. Other options: Subject's Pronouns, Pronouns Used, something like that. Theredproject (talk) 09:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Theredproject:, there's a subtle difference between what this template's goal is (which is what pronouns the article is or should be using) and what the individual concerned does. The reason for this, is that there is a subset of individuals that either use multiple sets of pronouns, sometimes interchangeably, sometimes under different circumstances, and there are also some that don't care, and accept more or less any set of pronouns, as long as the person using them has the proper attitude when doing so; Leslie Feinberg fits in this category.

But the article cannot decide to "just use any pronouns" based on whatever the last editor there decided, we have to have *some* sort of guidance (and that might take an Rfc to decide, as it has already in some articles). So, what the template does, is to describe what pronouns the article uses, which is almost always congruent with the individual concerned uses, except in those few cases noted, and also in cases of individuals who never gave a clear statement about their pronouns, or where reliable sources on the topic are insufficient (see e.g. Albert Cashier).

Given all that, I'm starting to think that {{Article pronouns}} may, in fact, be the best choice for the template nmae. That's where I'm leaning, at this point, but hope to hear more views before we make a final decision. Alternatively, if the "preferred" terminology is deemed offensive enough right now, we can always just move it to "Article pronouns" now, and then move it again later, if some other term is found to be better. I'm not currently in favor of a merge with "Pronoun notice" for reasons which I state in the section below. Mathglot (talk)

@Mathglot: Given the purpose of this template and the issues raised by Funcrunch and Theredproject, I'd agree that a move to {{Article pronouns}} seems like the best choice. (Other ideas I had included {{Biography pronouns}}, but as the {{{related}}} parameter allows the template to be used for non-biographies, I think {{Article pronouns}} is a better choice.) GreenComputer (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done We seem to have enough voices that's it worth moving now; if a stronger consensus develops later for another title it can be moved again. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate template

@Mathglot: This template seems to be the same as {{Pronoun notice}}. Can we merge them? Kaldari (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kaldari: Not the same; they appear in different places (that one is used for editnotices) and have different styles:

PN uses {{fmbox}}, PP uses {{tmbox}}; If you want to merge, then you need to parametrize the style, which I'm not necessarily opposed to; you could create one general pronoun template underlying both uses, then unload the current code from PP and PN and make them wrapper templates instead. I don't see the point of doing that, but I wouldn't object, if you feel like it. As things currently stand, the edit notice is not cut out for Talk page usage, and I've seen increasing numbers of articles with discussions on the topic, where a brief banner like this would be useful. There was a need, so I added it.

Having said that, I'm thinking of alternate wording, because someone is already using it on a non-bio article that is strongly related to an individual; see Talk:Stripped (tour). Was thinking of either making the text a bit vaguer ("biography or article related to an individual" or more likely, adding a param to conditionally replace "biographical article" with different text. See last testcase at Template:Preferred pronouns/testcases. Any ideas appreciated, but whatever the solution is, I want to keep the text brief enough so the info line doesn't wrap to a second line at typical window widths. Mathglot (talk) 20:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: If the style of {{Pronoun notice}} isn't "cut out for Talk page usage", then just change the style. There's no reason to have two different templates that serve the same purpose and use the same information. Look at {{COI editnotice}}, for example. That template is used as both an editnotice and as a Talk page template, and it uses the exact same style as what you've used here. There is no mandated style for editnotices, so it doesn't matter if you change the style of {{Pronoun notice}} to use {{tmbox}}. Kaldari (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, but there's another problem; which is the use of a single param at PN to express, say, "she/hers" whereas this one does it with two different ones, so a redirect might not work properly. There aren't a lot of transclusions of the new one, so in theory they could all be redone the other way, but that's not an option, as I did it this way on purpose, because I'm planning expansion in two directions, 1) auto-categorizing based on the first param (I realize I could substring the single-param version) and 2) to add different links when a binary pronoun (he, or she) or nonbinary (they, possibly some others) is recognized, and possibly a rightimage param, different border, trans flagicon, or some other indicator; I'm a believer in the value of style and image for increasing the information value conveyed in even a brief banner. Perhaps even those could probably be handled in a merged version, if someone wanted to, although I'm not sure what would happen with autocat in an edit notice; I suppose it would be ignored as it's only for the Preview window, but it makes a merge seem awkward.

The other issue which isn't so evident to me, is that PN uses {{Editnotice}} at the top level, with "expiry" and other params which don't makes sense here, and I'm not sure how hard that is to merge. Also, there are plenty of cases of templates with similar purposes: {{For}} and {{For2}}; {{Other places}}, {{Other ships}}, {{Other hurricanes}}; and then of course, there's {{user}}, {{user2}}, . . . , {{user23}}, {{user24}}; these examples all do kind of the same thing, and could have been backwards-compatible merged into the earlier ones with conditionals, but why bother? They serve slightly different purposes, have slightly different param sets, and slightly different groups of users who prefer them. I don't really see how this case is different. Almost all the templates at WP:WT could be one template, for example, with sufficient parameterization, at the cost of making them harder to use (or just converting all the existing ones to wrappers) but what's the point? I guess where I'm coming from is, they're not really duplicates; though I grant you they're similar, at least for now. Mathglot (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

One other thing: look, I think I get where you're coming from; you're a programmer, and I'm guessing you feel that based on principles of reusability merging is just the right thing to do. I get that. But Wikipedia's open template space is far removed from a tight software enterprise ship, nor, I believe, is it intended to be that. Not sure if that user2,... user24 example makes you want to barf, but if I put my programmer hat on, I can see why it might. I guess I can see why adding this template fits into that paradigm, and seems ripe for the culling. I'm less bothered by that sort of duplication (to the extent that it is duplication) in Wikipedia template space, than I would be, say, if something similar was happening in common routine libraries in Mediawiki's software repository; but that's a professional, controlled environment, and this is anything but. My main issue is to get something that hopefully helps users and the project with the minimum of (my expensively-paid, volunteer) effort up and running in a timely manner. To the extent that a merge would promote that end even more, I'm for it; but absent that, doing it just because it's the elegant thing, or the sensible thing in a professional environment at the cost of some additional programmer time or parametrization, doesn't make sense to me here. Let's have another look, once I get the styling and autocat in, and see what things look like then? Mathglot (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Kaldari editnotices should not be merged with talkpage templates. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Template listed on Category pages

Hi, User:GreenComputer, and thanks for your improvements both to the template, and the doc page. Can you help with one thing I can't figure out? It's that the template talk page itself and the testcases page are categorized; at Category:Articles tagged for feminine pronoun usage, and the testcases page on all the cat pages for which an example exists as a testcase (e.g., here) In the former case, this is likely caused by the Feinberg example on the doc page, and in the latter, by the testcases that invoke the corresponding pronoun in a test. Now, my understanding is that the call to {{talk other}} includes the categorization code, as it should (and that part is working) but the "else" case (between the pipe and terminating curlies, where I've added a star, here, in this excerpt from the 4th-to-last line: |★}}}}) contains no code where the star is, so the Template and the testcases not being in talk space, should *not* have executed the categorization code, but the null "else". But categorization is happening for the template, and for the testcases anyway. Why? Should I escape that last newline, maybe, so the pipe is on the previous line? Some functions seem sensitive to that.Mathglot (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Hang on, am going to try it with the newline escaped... Mathglot (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC) Nope, that didn't help. Any ideas? Mathglot (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot:  Fixed: This talk page was categorised as, although the usage of the template used the {{{demospace}}} parameter, this parameter was never pass along to {{talk other}} (fixed in this edit). The testcases page was being categorised by {{Article pronouns/sandbox}}, as the sandbox version has the {{{demospace}}} parameter of {{talk other}} hardcoded to talk. I updated the sandbox to the current version of the template. GreenComputer (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @GreenComputer: Hunh, thanks. I had the demospace param in there, but not here, only on the testcases page before. Didn't realize you could place it right into the template, like this. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh wait, I think I get it: I had the |demospace= param in the sandbox, I forgot it was there, not in testcases (where I first tried it), so it was the hardcoded sandbox page which was still being invoked from the testcases page that was categorizing, not the live template page itself; no wonder my tweaks to the template didn't fix it! I learned something; thank you. Mathglot (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Pronoun parameters

@Mathglot: Can we switch to using a freeform parameter for the pronoun? For example, Elliot Page uses both "he" and "they", with no preference between the two.[1] Thus, Template:Editnotices/Page/Elliot Page says "he/him or they/them", while this template says "he/him/his". It's confusing that the two templates say different things for the same person. The templates should have parameter parity if possible. Kaldari (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Before we talk about freeform, I think there's a misunderstanding about what the template is for. It is an editing guideline for editors editing the Wikipedia article; it is not advice for readers about the usage or preference by the subject of the article.

Many non-binary people accept multiple sets of pronouns. For example: Leslie Feinberg was clear in life about what her preferences were (just about anything, as long as used with respect), and as an encyclopedia, we should, and do, say that: see section Leslie Feinberg#Pronoun usage which goes into that topic in some detail. However, to avoid confusing readers, as editors we should pick one set of pronouns in an article, and stick to that; otherwise it's chaos. (There are some exceptions to note later.) In any given article, for a subject who is happy with multiple pronouns and where reliable sources also are all over the map, we still have to be internally consistent, and so it should be up to the consensus of the editors at the article which set of pronouns to use, through discussion. Once a consensus is reached, then the {{Article pronouns}} template should be placed on the Talk page, to reflect that consensus.

Much of the time it's a lot easier than that; maybe the subject of the bio accepts many pronouns but RSes primarily use one set; in that case, so do we, and we set the template likewise, without the need for much discussion. Or maybe the subject only use one set, sources sometimes use both, and per MOS:GENDERID we follow the individual's preference, and set the template to match.

Regarding your question about Elliot Page: imho, no, we shouldn't set it to both "he" and "they", because that doesn't offer an editor who is about to change the article any guidance about what to do, when we do know what to do: namely, "use 'he/him/his'". Does this answer the question you posed?

As far as the exception: the only time we should use more than one set of pronouns in the same article imho, is when it doesn't lead to any confusion, because of a separation of context that will be completely clear to a viewer reading the article and not confuse them. Either a temporal separation, using, say, masculine pronouns for a child raised as a boy who transitioned in adulthood, and female pronouns thereafter. Or a situational context, such as a man who lives as a man except when performing a female role, at which time the article may use their female name and feminine pronouns. That could be the case for Conchita Wurst. But not for Leslie Feinberg, Elliot Page, Maebe A. Girl, and many others who may either use multiple sets of pronouns currently, or even have no preference.

Circling back to your freeform question: what's the advantage? The cases where the article should really use two disjoint sets of pronouns is rare; I think there's only a couple of examples. I'll list one, if I find it. In that case, the article just uses the template twice, but maybe it should handle it differently. Finally, maybe the gist of what we're discussing here should be folded into the /doc page of the template somehow. The central point is, there are really three different "usage" contexts: what the subject of the bio uses; what reliable sources use; what the article uses. The template is only about the third one (but has the option of linking to #1 or 2, as justification). And as far as "parameter parity" I could see having a wrapper that could do that, but I wouldn't want to dumb the original template down by stripping out useful parameters. Does this help any? Mathglot (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

For an alternative view, there's a discussion at WT:LGBT on a related, gendered-pronoun topic, introduced by some editors would like to handle this via hatnote; but there's also a counter-current which would seek to get rid of all the special handling for pronouns, whether it be, notes, templates, and what-all else. While this template and the edit notice were either out of scope there, or just not mentioned there, my guess is that they would be also shot down by that current as not needed. In any case, that discussion is at WT:LGBT#Multiple pronouns, if you're interested. Mathglot (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Clarifying prounoun usage for the *reader*

An article like Demi Lovato, with consistent use of "they/their" (which, in their most common English usage, are interpreted as plurals) is very hard to understand if one is not aware that it is using non-binary pronouns (it may be even harder for non-native English speakers). I would like to suggest that a template like this (possibly modified to remove the exclamation point, and to explicitly clarify that it's non-binary pronoun usage) should be available for use on article pages, not just talk pages as is suggested here. Anyone have comments on this idea, or a better approach to clarify articles like Demi Lovato? (E.g., a friend of mine who read it thought it was simply a very badly written article until they reached the sentence *in the middle of the article* that clarified Demi's explicit decision to use they/their). Finney1234 (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Finney1234:, have you thought of a concrete proposal for this that would help? In its current form, it would not be appropriate there. Mathglot (talk) 06:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I think it's an significant issue, but it's not the most important thing to me, I have no experience with templates, and there's been virtually no interest or response (here or at Demi Lovato; yours is the first) so I'm not going to pursue it. Finney1234 (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Finney1234:, okay; you could try at the WikiProject, if there's a next time. Mathglot (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

If the article uses both sets

I don't think the template should endorse "if the article uses both sets". Do any articles even do this? If someone, say, gives "he/they" as their pronouns, then the article should stick to one set consistently so as not to be confusing. (I'd also say it should use he or she over they in such cases since those are clearer to the reader.) This is exactly what is done at Elliot Page for example. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Categorization with 'none' aliases

There may be a bug in proper categorization when aliases 'avoid' and 'avoid pronouns' are used. Mathglot (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed upgrade for non-biographies

Tamzin, I noticed this edit at Gamergate (harassment campaign) regarding pronouns used in the Gamergate article to refer to Zoë Quinn. It occurs to me that the Gamergate Talk page should probably be tagged with the {{Article pronouns}} template, in order to record this usage as guidance for other editors. Although this template can already handle non-biographical articles if they are primarily related to a single individual using the |related= parameter (see, e.g., Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) and Talk:Stripped (tour)), it doesn't currently handle articles such as Gamergate which are not primarily connected to one person, but I think it should.

I'm thinking about an upgrade, maybe throw out the "related" parameter and replace it with a new parameter, "person", or "bio" or something, and then at Talk:Gamergate, you could code:

{{article pronouns|none|person=Zoë Quinn|source={{slink|Talk:Zoë Quinn|Pronouns}}}}

which would then generate something like this for the Talk page at Gamergate:

If there were multiple personages in one article with special gendered treatment (which must be pretty rare), one could simply stack the templates, one per person. Would appreciate your feedback on this. Adding Sdkb who has good insight into such situations.

This is a "breaking change" as it would drop an existing parameter ("related"), but as it is only used twice, both instances could easily be upgraded to the new format. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Will look at this further when I have a sec, but noting I've added {{pronoun editnotice}} with |subject=Zoë Quinn to Template:Editnotices/Page/Gamergate (harassment campaign). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

That change looks good to me! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)