Convention regarding Gender

[Great Sage]

Personally, I don't like "who", but I accept that clarification is a legitimate reason to deviate from the ingame standard. But if people want to roll back "who" as well, I would not object, since as Eo said, unclear situations can be resolved by either context or rewording.

 

[Zystral]

"Jolteon has Thunderbolt, which can..."

Is it referring to the Jolteon or to the Thunderbolt? Does it even matter?
Admittedly, that's a terrible example, but I highly doubt the situation will ever arise where the case to need to use who over which will occur. And if it does, then like GS said, a simple rewording will fix all problems.

Option A is the best, since we are going for the least subjectivity, and we also want to accurately relfect anything that may happen in-game. If there is any confusion later on, then that can be addressed in the small changes thread as well. Plus, last time I checked most analyses currently on site are still using the "it" pronoun, and thus changing all the "he"s and "she"s back to its will be less difficult than changing the "it's into "he"s and "she"s.

I'm still questioning why A. the decision was ever made in the first place that Pokemon were people and B. why it wasn't fixed or overruled earlier.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

I don't honestly mind one way or the other, so long as it's consistently applied and stops changing every few weeks. Analyses get written for "Pokemon as objects", then they get written with "Pokemon as people", and now there's talk of reverting it once again. I really don't care which way it goes, but if it keeps flip-flopping, then we're wasting our resources and need to just pick something and go with it. There are awkward sentences no matter what you do and regardless of which way we go with this, so I don't think that should be a case on either side. I've personally grown accustomed to Pokemon as people (with genderless Pokemon still being it), but only because that's the current convention.

I say we stick with Pokemon as people just because it's what we currently have, even though personally I really agree with Pokemon as objects. This is a stupid thing to constantly contest and waste our writers on trying to fix in every on-site analysis.

 

[Draco Zephyr]

This is an issue that needs to be resolved quickly and efficiently. It's preventing me from GP checking an analysis right now, because I don't know whether to refer to "Pokemon as people" or "Pokemon as objects." I think we've arrived (somewhat) at a consensus. Looking through this thread, the majority of writers are either largely indifferent or in favor of referring to "Pokemon as objects." In other words, using the pronouns "it" and "which" as opposed to "he/she" and "who."

 

[eric the espeon]

I say we stick with Pokemon as people just because it's what we currently have, even though personally I really agree with Pokemon as objects. This is a stupid thing to constantly contest and waste our writers on trying to fix in every on-site analysis.

Worth noting that the on site analyses are fairly mixed, and from a few randomly picked it seems that those using "it" outnumber those that follow the recent convention by some way. I agree that it's not something that is very important, but it is something a fair number of contributors care about and it is ridiculous to have an unimportant standard forcing people to write in a way that they are not comfortable with. Better to take a little while to get the right choice than pick one at random and stick with it.

 

[whistle]

very strongly believe it > he/she - "it" is much more natural, perhaps because of the in-game precedent great sage mentioned (agree with basically everything he and heysup said). also, he/she sounds dumb.

weakly believe who > which - this is mostly just because we personify pokemon anyways... so "why not". but i don't really care too much about this one. maybe if someone provided examples of how a sentence would become awkward/confusing depending on whether who/which was used i would have a stronger stance on this; i can't think of one.

 

[bugmaniacbob]

If my opinion counts for anything, I would strongly support option A (all Pokemon referred to as "it") - mainly because that's my instinct and what I feel comfortable writing (it's annoying to catch yourself and suddenly realise you have to go through everything you've written giving the Pokemon a gender), but also because I would agree that he/she does not sound right, Pokemon as objects is the ingame precedent, and the "Pokemon that are obviously female" thing is simply too vague, as it entirely comes down to personal opinion, which isn't the best way to form a lasting rule.

In regard to the who/which thing, I really don't care that much, it really comes down to whether we want to be consistent and, of course, whether it really matters. It doesn't have that much to do with what I outlined in the OP, but I would be quite comfortable with any ruling

 

[bojangles]

The pronoun "it" is a gender neutral pronoun; it does not necessarily mean that the antecedents are "inanimate" (I put these in quotes because Pokémon are technically inanimate). It does have negative connotations when used to describe a human, but that doesn't have to be the case here.

This being said, I prefer "it" to "he/she" and "who" to "which".

 

[jc104]

Throwing my support behind option A. Glad to see this discussion up again. It is clear that option A is so much more natural that most people simply ignored the ruling regarding option B even when they were aware of it. This is creating unnecessary work for all analysis writers and grammar checkers.

Also, if we are not following in-game convention, I would like to see a number of other changes to standard english.

 

[Alan]

I always felt if a pokemon can be either gender or exclusively male, it should be he, but if it can only be female, it should be she. Genderless pokemon could also be male or "its".

Imo its pretty dumb to care about. Nobody is reading the analysises and making sure we are 100% consistent with every single page. They are reading for movesets and EVs. Nobody is going to go in and be like "WHAT THE FUCK BUTTERFREE IS NOT A GODDAMN MALE!!!!!" They are going to be like "Hmmm Dual Powder Butterfree sounds interesting".

Unfortunately, my post doesn't really matter, but I felt I should say that.

 

[Fireburn]

Supporting Option A, "it" just seems to fit better and that's how they're referred to in the games anyways. They're also called its in the in-game guides/instruction manuals for the games themselves, so trying to stick genders on them IMO is really unneeded and is a waste of time.

EDIT

We just checked the Pokedex entries on legends/single gender Pokemon/random gender Pokemon by Nintendo. ALL POKEMON ARE REFERRED TO AS "IT".

In my opinion, I feel that we should emulate Nintendo's take on the genders and just keep all Pokemon as its.

 

[firecape]

Yes im confirming what Fireburn said really, I looked at all the Pokedex entries, and nearly every single one (if not all) refers to the Pokemon as it, non-legends and legends alike.

 

[Ray Jay]

Worth noting that the on site analyses are fairly mixed, and from a few randomly picked it seems that those using "it" outnumber those that follow the recent convention by some way.

Due to this, as well the recently aforementioned points from Fireburn, it seems clearly evident that there is absolutely no reason why not to overturn the current rule.

 

[Fuzznip]

Let's please make all pronouns "it" and be done with this frustrating issue for the rest of eternity. It's beyond annoying when we have to change these kind of conventions, and then for whatever reason, they get changed again and all the work that's been done beforehand goes to waste. So all in all, refer to every Pokemon, including male/female-only Pokemon, as "its".

 

[whistle]

so what is the count like 30-1 in favor of "it"... what do we have to do to finalize this -.-

cause its kind of annoying to proofread/write with this in the air

 

[Aeolus]

Threads like this one drive me absolutely nuts. There is no reason to attempt to standardize the use of pronouns with regard to gender or to attempt to conform to the cartridges in this respect. This is a question of style and therefore the arbitrary choices of GameFreak hold no weight here.

Three things are important with respect to the use of pronouns in a Pokemon analysis on the site:

1) Use of masculine, feminine, or neuter pronouns must be internally consistent within the analysis. This means that you don't flip between genders or the neuter. Just pick one and stick with it within each individual analysis.

2) If a writer chooses to use a gender specific pronoun, the choice has to be sensible as determined by the quality control crew. It doesn't make any sense to call Jynx "he" or to call a Machamp "she". Notice this has nothing to do with what is obtainable in the cartridges and has everything to do with common sense which seems to be lacking horribly in this thread.

3) WE NEVER VISIT THE POLICY OF PRONOUN USAGE AGAIN. IT DRIPS OF PEDANTRY AND HAS NO PRODUCTIVE USE. IT ALSO CAUSES UNEASE AND UNCERTAINTY FOR OUR WRITERS AND PROOFREADERS WHICH IS JUST NOT POLITE.

Something that is also important about our analyses is that they should be interesting and comfortable to read. This is not technical writing. Using gender specific pronouns where the subject matter permits improves the tone of the writing with respect to our mission of providing informative and interesting articles. This is left to the discretion of the writer and the review of the QC team.

p.s. For the record... I'd have used "it" for Cloyster but that doesn't meant everything has to be called "it". Notice, if your inclination is to think of this as a dictatorial post, you have made a mistake. I have granted maximum creative latitude for our hard working writers with minimal guidance to make sure the writing is sensible. Forcing the use of "it" is impersonal and makes our analyses even more dry, boring, and "textbookish" than they already are. Forcing the masculine in cases of uncertainty yields some awkward results. Allowing discretion with quality review allows for the creation of analyses that are self-consistent and more fun to read.

THE END.