|
|
| (13 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| This article is extremely long, and most of the terms are obscure and not used enough to warrant their own article. However, they are expanded enough to be more than just a few words in an incredibly lenghty single article. I propose to subdivide this article into sub-articles that divide these genders into categories. I will propose this on the discord as well. --[[User:MorningSparrow|MorningSparrow]] ([[User talk:MorningSparrow|talk]]) 02:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
| |
| : Can you explain what harm there is, in an article being very long? Enough to justify reorganizing all this content again? At one time, in the old wiki, some editors had split this content into several articles. For example, moving all genderfluid-like identities into the genderfluid article, or moving all xenogender-like identities into a section in the xenogender article. Later, other editors preferred to move the entries back into this main article, so that there was a centralized list. In the history of this wiki, this particlar article has been content that editors have differed about how to organize. I believe that it's more valuable for us as wiki editors to build content, than to reorganize content over and over again. -[[User:Sekhet|Sekhet]] ([[User talk:Sekhet|talk]]) 05:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
| |
| ::I think there is no harm, per se, however I think it makes it difficult to use. Personally I was seeking to use this article to try to explore genders that might fit. However because of the length and difficulty to navigate it, it was neigh unusable. I'd hate for that to be the experience for any other questioning person.
| |
|
| |
|
| I think if we make a decision on where to place listed identities, we should add it to the style guide, to prevent this constant change. --[[User:MorningSparrow|MorningSparrow]] ([[User talk:MorningSparrow|talk]]) 22:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| == recent rollback ==
| |
|
| |
| okay, for clarities sake, i'm rolling back that addition as a) there wasn't a source and b) it sounds too close to that word for me to leave it up there
| |
|
| |
| If there is a good source, older than today (6 Oct) then i'll happily reinstate it
| |
