Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Translation/Male-female and pro-gender variants of the site
Male-female and pro-gender variants of the site
- Problem: Some people may prefer texts that are in their language in the male-female variant and others in the pro-gender variant. Today's Wikipedia does not allow you to switch between these options in your settings.
- Proposed solution:
- Who would benefit:
- Display the content of the page as the user wants.
- Reduction of tension between these groups.
- More comments:
|Man Woman||She is 5 years old and played with her toys.|
|Pro-gender||They are is 5 years old and played with their toys.|
- Phabricator tickets:
- Proposer: Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Dušan Kreheľ: Thanks for your proposal. I've machine-translated it into English in preparation for it being translated to other languages. This is a bit tricky because it's not as easy to express gendered nouns in English, but hopefully people will understand what's being proposed here. Also, there's a slightly similar proposal in the Wikisource category, for dynamically replacing archaic spellings (I mention it only because there might be some common way of marking up variants for replacement; I haven't looked into it greatly yet). (Strojový preklad: Ďakujeme za váš návrh. Strojovo som ho preložil do angličtiny v rámci prípravy na preklad do iných jazykov. Je to trochu zložitejšie, pretože v angličtine nie je také ľahké vyjadriť rodové podstatné mená, ale dúfajme, že ľudia pochopia, čo sa tu navrhuje. Tiež je tu trochu podobný návrh v kategórii Wikisource na dynamické nahrádzanie archaických pravopisov (spomínam to len preto, že by mohol existovať nejaký bežný spôsob označenia variantov na nahradenie; zatiaľ som sa tým veľmi nezaoberal).) — SWilson (WMF) (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Ok. Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Wikisource/Export of modernised texts is useful to read if someone wants to implement it. ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- LONG-TERM PRACTICALITY? : What happens if this gender-solution in English changes again? In the past half century, there have been various suggestions and changes. "Ms." has stuck – but using "their" for he-or-she-or-they risks impractical long-term usage. Bottom line: how will Wikipedia revert in the future, after making problem hundreds of thousands if not millions of changes to gender pronouns? --Aboudaqn (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- I live in the present or in the near future. Not in the distant future. These belong to others. The next generation. They solve and adjust (manually or with robots). And we certainly don't know what the future will be like.
- The world is not just English. In other languages, changes may not occur as often.
- Variations can be enriched, closer to certain people.
- The solution should be complementary.
- We will have the Movement Charter. It will probably be pro-gender (, the question number 108). For man-woman man will be a little less understandable.
- ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
This is only the draft as the idea. The implementation would be after discussions in the community. Implementation should be optional - whoever wants will use this option. If not, then everything will be the same. These are not automatic adjustments. A literal translation does not seem to be correct (when I translate, for example, she → they) . It is also necessary to know the context. In content with many people, translation can be challenging. this problem is suitable for cooking sites for T–V distinction. This implementation would be good wherever the languages are different in a few words. Wikipedia may be less attractive to a group of people if it is not directly in "their" language. I don't know that wiki setting in user settings would be acces via some API in the templates / Lua, except language variable.
@Eptalon, InterstateFive, Joedeshon, Modest Genius, and Silver hr: Response. ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Also, if I want another group to have their own language style (ex. the non-binary people) they should also be allowed to do so.
@Dronebogus: How have the way the non-binary people now? ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- What? Dronebogus (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Another, the gender language is not only about the he/she and they. More read Language and gender. ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
In https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences there is already a user preference setting as shown in the screenshot here. What more should we do? Bluerasberry (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Bluerasberry I don't know read this key+value setting from template or Wikifunctions. Another, that setting is a "vocativ" for the user. Missed T–V distinction. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC), ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Dušan Kreheľ: I think that I understand now. The situation is that the Wikimedia interface only has gender options for pronouns. This is because English language gets the most attention. The system works only when another language uses gender pronouns like English. However, this system does not work for other languages which have other ways of communicating gender.
- You want gender support for more language systems, including those that use gender in vocative case or this T-V distinction.
- Is that correct? Bluerasberry (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Bluerasberry I wanna the support for more language systems – the User interface or the content of pages (when the little changes the originals). Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose — Mr Grey (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- SupportJustinGanimard (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support THainaut (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose — ElioPrrl (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose --SSneg (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Strong oppose it seems like a bad joke. Wostr (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support OwenBlacker (Talk) 11:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - Languages other than English have concepts like a grammatical gender(In English: People say that .. -> they, In French: Les personnes disent... -> Elles (they, feminie plural, since personne in French is feminine). In addition, there are languages that have the concept of a dual (special mode to refer to two people), or other modes for groups of people; probably special rules apply when you use these modes. Writing in inclusive language may be modern, cool, and easy, in English, I don't know to what extent it is present in other languages (esp. those with strong patriarchic ideas about society). I don't speak Arabic, Persian, Pashto, Chinese, Japanese, or any of the languages of Pakistan/India/Bangladesh. I don't know how much want there is for a gender-inclusive text in those languages (don't forget homosexuals, transgender,...). Translation is difficult, and needs a lot of knowledge on the culture involved. So, writing a gender-neutral text is something that has to be done manually, and that likely cannot be automated.-Eptalon (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- In addition, each time a text is edited, we either need meta-information to generate the proposals form, or we need to hard-code the proposals. In addition, there may be an issue with the age or background of the reader. Older readers of English might prefer "he or she" over "they" (because in their view "they" is clearly wrong; younger readers may have less of a problem with "they". Also, there may be cutural differences: The Spanish and Portuguese in South America are noticably different from the languages in Europe. As to English: who thought about Belize, South Africa, India, Hong-Kong or Macao. English is an official language in all of them, yet there will be small differences in language use; which might come to light in such cases. Same probably for Dutch in Europe, vs. Afrikaans in South Africa? - So while it would certainly be a nice thing to have, I don't see it can be done easily, esp. if you want to automate it, and be available in several languages. Eptalon (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support Libcub (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Strong oppose The correct gendered vs non-gendered terminology varies by context and can be complicated. The appropriate treatment should be handled by the local wiki style guide, not set in software preferences. Modest Genius (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- Strong oppose Some languages are strongly gender-SPECIFIC and native users are comfortable with that. Other languages are strongly gender-NEUTRAL and native users are comfortable with THAT. Adding such a feature could impose a constraint where it isn't culturally accepted and would risk offending as many people as it satisfied. Joedeshon (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose --Havang(nl) (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose XavierItzm (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Seboloidus (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose It depends in languages. Thingofme (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose KingAntenor (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose A.S. Universal (talk) 08:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose --Hampcky (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose This proposal makes no sense whatsoever. Silver hr (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Gene (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose --MarieVirtuElle (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Kpjas (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose You can already do this, can't you? --InterstateFive (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 03:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose--Vulp❯❯❯here! 09:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose there are ways to include non-binary people, this isn’t one of them. Dronebogus (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose There are a number of issues with changing all singular references to plural as in the example above. --Dcheney (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I do not understand the scope of the proposal, and the example given appears to have been scrambled in translation. Significant development and clarification is needed before it could be seriously considered.Zfish118 (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Ayumu Ozaki (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose i don't see this as a workable suggestion in its current form. I can't how it would work. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- ”I can’t how it would work” perfectly sums up this proposal. Dronebogus (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Not the place to right great wrongs in the society — DaxServer (t · c) 14:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Strong oppose Clearly not a good idea. Prawdziwy Mikołajek (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Not necessary at all. --Ján Kepler (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose ~Cybularny Speak? 23:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Obviously there are issues to address here and we need more clarity in the proposal, but I support the development of this idea if anyone can more clearly describe an actionable solution. I think more discussion would be useful. Bluerasberry (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose קליאו (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)