Board Thread:Wiki management/@comment-7091122-20170207035621

__NOTEDITSECTION__

Disclaimer
'''Listen. I'm as tired as you all are of these threads, but before you all blindly oppose for the same reasons as you did like half a year ago, please read this:' The way I am suggesting this addresses every complaint I can recall that was had for opposing plant genders, that was actually a valid reason for their opposition.''

And before this is closed for not being 6 months since last thread, keep in mind that not only was the low-priority vote system made hastily to simply stop this lone topic from popping up, but reforms are currently in place to shorten it to 2 months. And it's sure been 2 months since the last Plant Genders thread. Thusly, no, this can't be closed for that reasoning.

However, be warned: until further notice by an administrator, if your reason falls under any of the reasons I address in the counter-counterclaims section, I will disqualify it under the assumption that it is a blind vote, unless you do indeed have a valid reason for stating the claim and the counter-counterclaim may be invalidated.

I do apologize in advance for such harsh voting, but since this is such a sensitive topic that almost begs for blind voters to oppose it, I want to make sure the voting for this, is indeed reasonably done, and not blindly opposed like it was all the times in the past. Especially since blind voting is what got this very topic a special rule to prevent voting on it for six months hastily slopped onto the rules due to people simply not caring enough to blindly oppose a thread every month.

Now then, on with the thread itself.

The Idea
Almost every plant has a gender specified in the game's canon. For instance, Cactus is generally said to be female, while Captain Combustible is said to be male. However, this is not reflected in any way, shape, or form on the Wikia articles. This is essentially ignoring canon information for... who knows why? (actually, I do, but see counter-counterclaims)

Now, the idea has popped up, "why don't we just use gender pronouns on plants?" several times. However, it's been opposed every time. For two key reasons, that you can have several plants on field at once, and that plants don't have genders in real life.

For the latter argument of "plants don't have genders in real life", this can easily be explained away by the ways of video game logic, it's fictional, and thusly, real life really has no impact on the fictional realm of Plants vs. Zombies. (I hope not, at least... someone get me my saucepan.)

However, for the former, not only were zombie genders added despite this also being applicable there, there is, in fact, a way around this. And I've devised it, and would like to share it, in the hopes that maybe, with this addition to the tired "plant genders" debate, it might hopefully change some people's minds about this, and lean it to the supportive.

The Plan
The plan is simple:
 * If a plant is being referred to as an individual (i.e. just one of them, singular), then utilize the gender-specific pronouns. In this scenario, since we are referring to only one, we can go by the plant's canonical gender, no worries.
 * Example: Spikerock is a plant in Plants vs. Zombies. He attacks zombies from the ground, like Spikeweed.
 * If a plant is being referred to as a group, or several instances of the plant (i.e. a plural amount), then utilize the gender-neutral pronouns. This would most frequently be used in strategies, where it is usually applicable.
 * Example: Plant 2 rows of Spikerocks in the front, and a Primal Wall-Nut behind them. By planting the Primal Wall-Nuts in front of the Spikerocks, they are able to deal more damage than they could due to the zombie's prolonged position in the damage radius.

With this simple plan, you can reach a compromise of sorts; in instances where plants are referred to as individuals, genders are used, but in groups, they go back to gender-neutral. This not only makes grammatical sense, but deals with the main complaint of opposition, that there can be several of the plant at once.

In addition...
While not directly part of the plan, I do see a few other things I should mention.
 * Other wikis do this: Generally speaking, even if a character is not remotely human, and several instances of them can exist, gender pronouns are still used if they are grammatically correct.
 * As evidence: David from Battle For Dream Island is explicitly stated and shown to have clones (see: Davidland), and is a stick figure in a show with sentient objects. However, he is always referred to as a male, in spite of not exactly being human, and having several possible clones of him.
 * We do it with zombies: I never understood this; Zombies fulfill the exact same reasons for opposing them having genders, however, they have gendered pronouns on their pages. This seems like an absurd double-standard.
 * Gender inconsistency: If a plant has an inconsistent gender (referred to as a male/female in different places), then it will be referred to by the gender it is most commonly stated to be. For instance, since Sun-shroom is only stated to be male once, but has been stated to be female more than twice, it will be referred to under female pronouns.
 * Gender nonexisty: ...I'm sorry, there's no good catchy name there. Some plants just... don't have a specified canonical gender. In that situation, just don't use gender-specific pronouns, since there's no true way to verify its gender.

Counter-Counterclaims
Keep in mind that I have seen all of these brought up, at least once, and there was little to no questioning of their legitimacy; this further leads me to believe that there is some serious blind voting issues and inherent bias against this topic, however, I digress.

Now, I will go over various counterclaims I have seen against these in the past. Keep in mind that I will not be going over the two I have already addressed; those being that real life plants have no gender, and that multiple instances of a plant can co-exist.


 * They're not human, they can't have genders: So are dogs, cats, and almost every animal we know under the sun, but they do indeed have genders. More likely, however, it all goes back to the "it's just a fictional work and you shouldn't think too hard about it" stuff. Remember, at the end of the day, these are plants that battle zombies. Genders are the least of our concerns here.
 * Don't shove your political viewpoint onto the wiki: This is... a real reason that was given for opposition. If you searched it, you'd find it eventually; look it up. Nobody questioned it, either, as far as I can recall. Is this a joke? Am I being bamboozled? My point is, ultimately, is that this is entirely irrelevant to the topic, and I don't know how this was not only allowed, but was not questioned by other non-supporters. There's nothing political about grammar. (except maybe Grammar Nazis, but that's another tale.)

If you have any other counterclaims, please tell me, and I can address them accordingly, as well as put them onto this original post.

In Conclusion
I sincerely want you to take into consideration the things I have stated in this thread before you even touch the keyboard to vote, much less move your mouse over to the comment box. Blind voting is a serious issue for this topic especially; it got a hasty rule that has gone over heavy reforms for being unfair just because of these blind votes.

Again, keep in mind that if your reason is the same as a reason that I directly address and debunk, I will disqualify it until further consensus to the contrary by higher-up staff, under the assumption that it is a blind vote, and I do apologize for such the drastic measure. However, when a topic's blind voting gets it a special rule to keep voting on it from happening for the span of six months, it really becomes a dire concern that there could be blind voting and just bias overall against this mere concept, and I feel it should be addressed.

Now, go ahead and vote, so long as you read the entire thread. 