User talk:Sekhet

From Nonbinary Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Wikilogo new.png
Hi Sekhet, welcome to the Nonbinary wiki!

This your talk page, where other users can talk to you. I hope that you will find this place welcoming and that you will decide to stay for a long, long time. To create a new page just enter its title in the following box and press the button:

(Remember to check if the page already exists!)

If you have any doubts, just go to my talk page and ask, or go to the General discussion page, where you may get help from other users. Additionally, I invite you to join our Discord server, where we talk about nonbinary stuff and plan the development of the wiki!--Ondo (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrolled[edit source]

Hi! You are now an Autopatroller. From now on, all your edits will be automatically marked as patrolled. Thanks for your awesome contributions <3 --Ondo (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! -Sekhet (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Reverted an edit[edit source]

I reverted your edit to the Dyadism page. I don't think that redirect made sense as their is no content on the Sexes page for dyadism. If you were intending to move the Dyadism content, then just revert me back, but to me it seems to work quite well on the Intersex page as it is a specifically related to intersex people and not sex in general. Falkirks (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Uncommon identities[edit source]

Hi! Just a small heads-up about your last edit in Fluidflux, when you added {{uncommon identity}}. Fluidflux is not considered uncommon because it had more than the 0.20% of respondents in the last Gender Census. You can read more about when to use this template here. Thanks! --Ondo (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for explaining where the cutoff really is for that. The "almost not used" label that was already on the fluidflux article made me think it also counted as "uncommon." Maybe we should word that differently? -Sekhet (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps. Any ideas? --Ondo (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
How about the popularity rating is relabeled, so that identities of at least 0.20% popularity or higher are called "present," "extant," "attested," or something along those lines, whereas the label "almost not used" is reserved for identities that were less than 0.20% of the survey? -Sekhet (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
You mean changing the scale to a binary (:P) option? That could be an option, why not. I will ask our users on discord to take a look at this conversation to get their opinions. --Ondo (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
A member of the Discord suggested to remove the label altogether and leave the percentage only. I like this, what do you think? --Ondo (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I like that, too. Just using the percentage sounds like a good solution. -Sekhet (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Done! --Ondo (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Page you might have archived[edit source]

I don't know if Gender recognition in education in the United States ever had content or if it was just a redlink, but it isn't available on archive.org. So if you have a copy, it would be useful to recover that page. Falkirks (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi![edit source]

Just wanted to drop way to thank you and tell you that it's always nice when you come back to do some edits! Feel free to ask anything you might need, you can also join the Discord server if you want to meet the other two admins ("apprentice admin"). See you around! :) --Ondo (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, it's great to be welcomed back! I'll have to try out Discord sometime soon, it seems to be the place everything's happening these days. -~~

Structured Discussions migration[edit source]

Hello,

Just a quick note to tell you that all talk pages on this wiki will be migrated to the Structured Discussions method next Wednesday (this includes your own talk page). Old messages will be archived. If you would like to comment on that, you can do so in the General discussion page. Thank you for your contributions to the project, and see you around! --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Cyan and other neutral names[edit source]

Hi! Someone in the Discord server brought up that Cyan is missing from the neutral names list and it was removed with this edit. I remember you were working on these lists, so maybe we already talked about this, but I'm confused as to why this (and other names) were removed although they had a source that marked them as neutral/unisex/male & female. Let me know your thoughts! ^^ --Ondo (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for asking about this. I've been thinking I should write about my emerging methodology for this project. Originally, I used to include every neutral name I could find, because I wanted it to be comprehensive. Then the name list got so long that I couldn't see how I could complete the project, and I was finding that it included a lot of names that sources said were neutral names, but which turned out not to be really used as neutral names. Lately, I've been instead limiting the scope of the name lists by only including those names where I can find statistics or other evidence showing that they have been used as neutral names, whether currently, or historically. I've been removing names if the statistics show they are used as feminine 90% of the time or more, or masculine 90% of the time or more (unless if there is evidence that the names used to be more neutral at a different point in history), or where I could not find statistics proving the name's gender distribution really is neutral, even though there are sources saying they are neutral names. (Cyan was one of the names where I did not find gender distribution stats about it, only sources claiming that it was neutral.) Limiting the scope like this helps make the project more manageable in size, and makes it so we can be sure that the names really are used as neutral names. On the other hand, sometimes I feel disappointed about having to omit a lot of wonderful names just because I couldn't find evidence that satisfied my rules for what to include. --Sekhet (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I'll just now post about this in the Discord, and ask what the community thinks is the best solution for names that don't have stats. --Sekhet (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)