View source for Forum:"Gender" is a non-canonical concept

{{Forumheader|Redwood Grove|name=&#34;Gender&#34; is a non-canonical concept|subject=|notes=|closure=|archive=|date=|user=|type=}}

==On the usage of "Gender" on the Old School RuneScape Wiki==
As of a recent [[Update:Slayer_Partners#Makeover_Updates|update]] on [[14 August]] [[2024]], "Gender" is no longer a word used in the game ''Old School RuneScape'' to describe any attribute of the player. The verbiage was removed in an update, and the system it referred to was replaced with a selection between two "Body types" as well as a separate selection of three preferred Pronoun types. The body types were intentionally labeled "Body type A" and "Body type B" in the [[Makeover]] interface, most likely to distance the concept of "Body type" from "Gender". It is additionally possible now to select He/Him, They/Them, or She/Her pronouns, independent of the player's chosen body type. They/Them is a neutral form of address, not previously accessible or implemented in any way.

As a related issue, NPCs are also not explicitly referred to in-game as having "gender". Most well-developed characters in ''Old School RuneScape'' do have consistent usage of personal pronouns which have been used to determine the "gender" parameter of NPC Infoboxes. Lacking that however, it has been previously done to just guess the NPC "gender" based on NPC body types and what was likely intended without direct evidence. There are many non-humanoid characters for whom it is less possible to accurately guess the intended "Gender" (if there was one intended) yet may still have a gender listed anyway. In almost all cases, the specific gender identity of NPCs is not stated in-game as unambiguous fact, which makes it potentially inappropriate or unsubstantiated to include as a fact regardless.

===History of "Gender" in RuneScape===
{{Extimage|https://i.imgur.com/4bSgcPQ.png|right|300|Earliest surviving ''RuneScape'' character creation screen, with "Gender" selector included.}}
In the long history of ''RuneScape'', a binary bit has always been used to store either a "Male" or "Female" appearance for the [[Player character]] going all the way back to [[classicrsw:Devious MUD|Devious MUD]]. If you squint, you can see two separate buttons labeled "Male" and "Female" [https://rsc.plus/img/rs/charactor.creation.devious.mud.png here in this image] showing the charactor{{sic}} "Choose your appearance" screen in Devious MUD. This interface was apparently implemented on [[22 March]] [[1999]], as one of the very first features of the game. (Image taken from [https://youtu.be/FtFTI_uqpeA?t=584 Runefest 2010 - Insider Session "RuneScape Genesis"] @ 9:44, on YouTube)

The earliest known released ''RuneScape'' character creation screen that still survives is from [[10 May]] [[2001]] (seen on the right). We have text descriptions of an earlier character creation screen which included the [[classicrsw:Classes|"Necromancer" class]] instead of the "Miner" class (suspected to have been added with the removal of the [[classicrsw:EvilMagic|EvilMagic]] skill), but there is no known prior update recorded in which the entire Design Your Character interface was redone, nor record of the inability to customise your character at any time. We happen to know that the Design Your Character interface was updated on [[28 December]] [[2000]], (prior to release), in order to "Now support different coloured skin" (see [[classicrsw:2000]]). So, it would be reasonable to suspect that the character creation interface was finalized for initial release on that day, and that most likely, the word "Gender" was included in-game all the way back on the day of ''RuneScape's'' release, [[4 January]] [[2001]].

For additional context of the "Gender" feature as implemented at the beginning of ''RuneScape'', it is known that as an engine feature, there was a [[classicrsw:Runescript|Runescript]] command available called [https://web.archive.org/web/20080907105147/http://gowerarchive.googlepages.com/documents#Runescript "ifmale();"], which sets the status flag "true" if the character's "Gender" is set to "male", or else the flag is set to "false" in the only other case. This command is described in the Runescript manual as being useful to "[get] gender specific language correct in the scripts.", or in other words, to properly address the player with appropriate pronouns.

{{Extimage|https://i.imgur.com/kMHgq4J.png|right|300|Early ''RuneScape 2'' character creation screen, with "Male" and "Female" buttons under a "Gender" label.}}
The historic binary treatment of "Gender" in ''RuneScape'' was not malicious, nor was its coupling of player appearance and pronouns ever considered inappropriate or unusual. At the time of the selection of the word "Gender" in 2001, the definition of that word was generally understood to be synonymous with the modern concept of [[wikipedia:Sex|"Sex"]]. No one would fault the Gower brothers for offering the inclusive option to change the player's avatar to a second body type preferrable to many people as more comfortable and self-relatable, nor would many people at the time have suspected that it would later become desirable to decouple "Body type" from "Pronouns" as was made possible in ''Old School'' just recently.

However in [[2004]], the "Gender" verbiage carried into ''RuneScape 2'' with the additional call out of explicitly naming the two available options in-game as "Male and "Female". This then carried on into ''Old School RuneScape'' where the [https://oldschool.runescape.wiki/w/File:Body_types_makeover_interface.png#File_history verbiage remained] until just a couple days ago. Now the word "Gender" has been removed from the [[Makeover]] interface, with "Body type" added as one of the replacement systems. "Body type A" replaced the setting previously referred to as "Male" and "Body type B" replaced the setting previously referred to as "Female". Additionally, the player's preferred pronouns were decoupled from Body type, and a third gender-neutral form of address was implemented all across the game.

===What does all this matter now?===
As established, "Gender" was a foundational feature of the game ''RuneScape''. It is with the inclusion of that concept that all pages on the ''Old School RuneScape Wiki'' have been written. Usually, there would be no consequence to this across the wiki, except for on the relevant pages discussing player customization and character creation, such as [[Player character]] and [[Gender]], or on pages related to content that has been previously gender restricted, such as on [[Elegant clothing]] and [[Makeover voucher]].

====NPC infoboxes====
Perhaps unfortunately, or perhaps out of necessity, someone at some point decided that <code>|gender =</code> was a useful piece of metadata to attach to [[NPC]]s. Humanoid NPCs and Players have traditionally shared the same bodykit, so it was natural to use "Gender" as the name of the parameter attribute of NPCs. Not only was it the same verbiage used in-game to describe the player, but it would have also been a natural choice independent of in-game verbiage, for the same reasons that "Gender" was chosen by Jagex initially. Additionally, non-humanoid NPCs often only have an established "Gender" through the choice of pronouns used to refer to them in NPC dialogues, making the "Gender" parameter slightly more useful and non-obvious in those cases. It is part of the English language to consistently refer to entities with gendered pronouns, and so perhaps enabling players to do so accurately and consistently by including the <code>|gender =</code> attribute on NPCs when possible was in fact a useful decision in some cases.

[[File:Giant_Mole.png|thumb|right|The gender of the mole is ambiguous and undefined.]]
However, it is not always completely obvious what the gender identity of an NPCs is intended to be. At the same time, there is a <code>|gender =</code> attribute on 80% of all pages including template Infobox NPC. This is because there is a valid and reasonable gender identity that can usually be uncontroversially assumed, but it is usually ''not'' explicitly stated in-game whether that gender identity is a matter of canonical fact.

This parameter has been a point of conflict on the ''Old School RuneScape'' Wiki at times in the past, which has resulted from at least a few factors:

# The word "Gender" has changed in common usage since being implemented on RuneScape Wiki. When established, I believe "Gender" would most accurately indicate what "Pronouns" an NPC is referred to by. But as time has gone on, the definition of "Gender" has more commonly referred to the concept of "Gender identity", which is different. Editors have not had a consistent understanding of the concept that the parameter is named for, and this inconsistency has (sometimes) resulted in conflict.
# NPCs are sometimes referred to by pronouns traditionally considered to be conflicting. For example, both [[Mole]] and [[Zulrah]]'s trivia pages claim that they are referred to by both "He" and "Her" pronouns by in-game NPCs. This could be because the specific NPCs in question are making assumptions, and do not have perfect knowledge of the Sex, preferred pronouns, or Gender Identity of others (if those concepts are applicable to non-human & possibly non-sentient NPCs like the Giant Mole at all...), or hypothetically, perhaps He/Him/She/Her are in fact all correct pronouns to address these NPCs. We cannot always draw a definitive and justified conclusion, and these inconsistencies could (sometimes) result in conflict.
# NPCs simply do not all have established gender identities in the lore, revealed or internal. Sometimes, gender identity & pronouns were just not considered important or necessary to consider in creation of the character. Many characters in ''RuneScape'' have been created where it is apparent they were just not very deeply thought of, or not much care was taken in their creation. For example, [[Nesty]], for whom it seems to have been determined after much debate that the usage of "They" in the NPC's examine text was not indicative of their "Gender", but more likely is attributable to them being quickly copied based off an unnamed generic [[Forester (Woodcutting Guild)#Unused)]] designed in 2004... On the other hand, sometimes seemingly inconsequential NPCs have names that are a reference to a real-world person, either in the developer's personal life, or as a cultural reference. Some one-off NPCs absolutely do have deeper meaning or internal lore, known only to the developer who implemented them, or written only on an internal use lore sheet for reference by future developers. For example, [[Warmhandz]] is a goblin NPC created & present only in the [[2023 Birthday event]]. Despite only existing temporarily and never being explicitly stated, it was confirmed that Warmhandz was designed as a Nonbinary character. The possibility of deeper-than-apparent lore has lead to uncertainty in the wiki community at times, and the inconsistency behind the depth of lore of characters in ''Old School RuneScape'' in combination with the desire of wiki editors to assign a <code>|gender =</code> to all NPCs has (sometimes) resulted in conflict.
# People may not be aware that the NPC "gender" parameter is optional. Due to its usage in roughly 80% of all pages that include the NPC Infobox template (and the percentage may be higher for specific NPCs that the Infobox template is likely to be chosen to be copied from, for similarity to a hypothetical NPC page being newly created), the gender parameter is prolific in use. While possible to omit, the option to tactfully omit the gender parameter may be overlooked due to its prevalence. The optional parameter is already invisible when not included, but it is included on approximately 3000 NPC pages, while only being omitted only on approximately 800 pages (with template Infobox NPC). Some evidence does exist that people are generally unaware the field is optional. The field is defined as "N/A" on 7 NPC pages, "Unknown" on 5 NPC pages, "None" on 2 NPC pages, "Unspecified" on 1 page, "Either" on 1 page, and "Male and female" on 1 page. There are also 10 pages where the parameter is included but left blank.

There are several options regarding the future of the <code>|gender</code> parameter in NPC infoboxes.

:1. Do nothing.
::*This is the easiest option, and it is not likely to be immediately controversial, but there are several problems that have previously lead to conflict & could lead to conflict in the future as stated above. As time goes on, "Gender" may become an increasingly confusing term to use for its previously used purpose. Additionally, there is no longer in-game usage to justify the term.
:2. Retire the "Gender" parameter by making it an invisible field, add a new category "Needs pronouns" for pages that include the gender parameter but do not yet include a pronouns parameter
::*The old concept of denoting an NPC's "Gender" and the more accurate concept of listing the NPC's "Pronouns" are very similar. However, "Pronouns" is a more accurate term without confusion over what it refers to. It has become common for people to list their preferred pronouns on their social media bios, or in email signatures, and so it would not be out of place to list NPC pronouns in an infobox. Compared to the existing "Gender" parameter, a "Pronouns" parameter would describe only whatever the NPC is known to have been referred to by, without reference to an implied Gender identity as a derived trait. Unlike Gender identity, there is much more frequently direct in-game evidence of pronouns used. For example the Giant Mole could have "Both He/Him and She/Her" as the parameter value, without needing to speculate on what that means for the Giant Mole's internal gender identity. It informs the reader of what pronouns are officially used to refer to an NPC, so that it is not necessary for people referencing that NPC to make their own guess.
:3. <!--meow--> Rename "Gender" parameter to "Pronouns", automatically adapting the parameter contents.
::*This option is less accurate than manually reviewing all 3000 existing gender parameter values, but it is more immediately gratifying to have the work done, and it is likely to be acceptable in almost every case. It would be more useful if "Pronouns" were only added based on in-game evidence of usage, which not all NPCs with gender parameters will have, but realistically, it may be difficult to maintain that level of rigidity if trying to impose high standards of evidence for pronouns-actually-used on a community-wide scale. It also ensures that there is not a period of time where it is not specified what pronouns the ''Old School RuneScape Wiki'' is considering correct for addressing each NPC in main article texts. Unsubstantiated adaptations of the gender parameter could be gradually replaced by "|pronouns = None" when noticed, which would remove the visibility of the parameter from the infobox while still answering the question of what the NPC's officially used pronouns are.
:4. Simply delete the "Gender" parameter without replacing it with anything
::*This seems like it might be acceptable, since the parameter may not actually be useful to many people. It is not accessible by Special:SearchByProperty since [[Property:Gender]] does not exist, and I'm not sure how often the typical reader actually relies on the parameter. People are often used to navigating real-life situations in which explicitly given knowledge of preferred pronouns are not always immediately available, since that has been the norm and it continues to be the most common social situation today.
::*However, it is hard to advocate a stance of omitting knowledge which is necessary to accurately and consistently refer to the NPC in an article. Setting a single place where the pronouns of an NPC are concretely defined and can be easily referenced helps set a consistent phrasing that can be used throughout the main article text. It can help both editors and readers to include the parameter, and its omission would not skillfully dodge the issue of determining pronouns, since most natural speech does include the use of pronouns to reference previously referenced subjects; it needs to be determined in any case.

====The "Gender" page specifically====
[[File:Plain clothing (female).png|thumb|x200px|Quote: "An example of a female (body type B) character"]]
The Gender page has several problems:
# This page references a now-removed system in its page title. The new "Body Type" and "Pronouns" systems have been intentionally distanced from the previous "Gender" system by the verbiage chosen by Jagex. It would likely be considered inappropriate and undesired to add a <nowiki>{{Gone}}</nowiki> template to the page, stating "Gender was removed after an update", but that word & the topic of the article based on it does in fact refer to a system that used to exist in ''Old School RuneScape'' and which was reworked into the different "Body Type" and "Pronouns" systems now present instead.
# While the page could be moved to a new name covering a different but related topic, the NPC infobox pointing at the "Gender" article would also ideally reflect that change instead of relying on a not-fully-accurate redirect. Changing line 133 of Module:Infobox_NPC to <code><nowiki>{ tag = 'th', content = '[[Pronouns|Gender]]', colspan = '8' },</nowiki></code> would partially but not entirely avert the problem of needing the redirect.
# The article is currently prone to attracting imprecise edits regarding the new systems which replaced "Gender" and accurate verbiage concerning them.
# The article duplicates some of the information in [[Makeover]], which is a strictly better article covering the ability to choose Pronouns and Body type, recently revamped by Shayani for the new update.

Possible futures for the Gender page:
:1. Split the articles in the same way that the Gender system was split in-game.
::* It could be split to a [[Body type]] article, which lists some of the more notable in-game cosmetic differences between the two available body types (e.g. [[Santa's Suit]] and [[Verac's brassard]], which still adapt depending on the player's body type). This would address the concerns of anyone confused by the term "Body type" as well as immediately clarifying which type is referred to as "Body type A" and which one is "Body type B". It could also continue to detail historic differences based on Body Type, like in the quests Recruitment Drive, The Giant Dwarf, and Throne of Miscellania.
::* It could additionally be split to a [[Pronouns]] article, which could start with the section currently labeled "Non-player characters". This section does a good job of detailing mostly just pronoun differences, whether in reference to the player or to NPCs.
:2. The article could be archived as a removed concept, with a more sensitive variant of <nowiki>{{Gone}}</nowiki> pinned to the top. This is not my favourite, since almost all of the information would be duplicated by new Pronouns and Body type articles. There is also very little reason to preserve the concept of the two systems being permanently linked together, further than a footnote on both the Pronouns & Body type pages.

Having thought about it, I'm actually having trouble coming up with any sane alternative to option 1, and will go ahead and implement that. These have been my thoughts behind the article split, at any rate.

====Also of note with the new update====
All non-historical NPC dialogue transcripts which referenced the player's gender are known to be outdated, since the new addition of the They/Them pronouns option. Obviously this will be amended as time goes on, as all transcripts are, but it is something that should be noted as an impact of this update on the wiki community, and not forgotten. Someone would need to take interest and undergo special effort to update these transcripts more quickly, whether that's through "automatic" collection on RuneLite, or someone specifically seeking out dialogues known to adapt based on the player's preferred pronouns. Otherwise, these new dialogues run the risk of never being collected.

===THANKS===
I said I'd keep it short on Discord, but I couldn't. Please address my proposed move to use "pronouns" as the name of an alternative NPC Infobox parameter replacing the current parameter "gender". Please also leave any comments you may have with your own thoughts on these issues, or thoughts about other impacts of the update not considered here.
{{Signatures/Logg}} 11:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

==Comments==
This is an overreaction! Usually, gender is quite simple: Is someone male or female? Anything outside of that is the exception and not the rule. There's no need to split the gender article in two. Body type and pronouns can be covered in the same article. [[User:Winter Armor|Winter Armor]] ([[User talk:Winter Armor|talk]]) 12:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
:The concept is not so simple. As chronicled above, the definition and understanding of "Gender" has changed, even on the recent timescale including only the lifespan of the game ''RuneScape''. There is an entire field of psychology named  "Gender studies", and a lot more written about it than just what I've said above. If you are interested, you may like to start with [[wikipedia:Gender]] to understand better how Gender no longer as commonly refers to a concept considered as binary as you describe.
:Regardless, "Gender" is not the name of a system that exists anymore in ''Old School RuneScape'', and articles dedicated to each of the offspring systems should help to clear up confusion surrounding them, without mixing the two in a confusing and inaccurate way, against the intentional redesign now implemented. {{Signatures/Logg}} 13:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
:: I said "usually". I'm aware that there are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex intersex people], cultural constructs and different cultures having different constructs, etc. But then, you could say much the same about the statement "''human hands have five fingers''": You could point out human hands with six fingers, hands which have lost a finger in an accident, etc. [[User:Winter Armor|Winter Armor]] ([[User talk:Winter Armor|talk]]) 13:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the title of the thread, even if the word 'gender' isn't used in-game, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are many many references to gender and gendered concepts. The fact that male/female pronouns exist at all is an example of a gendered language and therefore a gendered society. Other gendered words include 'ironman,' 'ironwoman,' 'king,' 'queen,' 'father,' 'mother,' 'brother,' and 'sister.' The latter two extend to the fact that nuns are called 'sisters' and monks are called 'brothers.' Even further than that, the Edgeville Monastery canonically doesn't let women join the order, so gendered societal roles also clearly exist in Gielinor. My point is that 'gender' is a completely appropriate word to use to describe both player characters and NPCs, because none of these things would be true if not for the fact that characters clearly do ''have'' genders.

{{Template:Signatures/DrYoshiyahu}} 13:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)


:: I suppose that's what I was getting at. Gender clearly exists in Gilinor! Does Gilinor, a pseudo-medieval fantasy world, have the same cultural constructs around gender as the 2020s US/UK? Highly unlikely. But does the basic concept of gender, the distinction between male and female, exist? Yes. [[User:Winter Armor|Winter Armor]] ([[User talk:Winter Armor|talk]]) 14:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)


: It's a bit of a click-baity title I'll admit. While genuinely I couldn't find any reference to the named concept "Gender" insource: on wiki, obviously there are many characters in ''Old School RuneScape'' that do have strongly defined and canonical gender identities. The "Gender" system previously used to customise the player is what is now (previous to article split) non-canonically named and it is what the pre-split [[Gender]] article primarily focused on. About 90% of the article content was able to fit onto either the [[Body type]] or [[Pronouns]] pages.
: Additionally, in-game NPC "Gender" is much less commonly expressed than just the "Pronouns" that others refer to them by. The title is reference to the fact that in many cases, the "Gender" parameter of NPC Infoboxes has a greater chance of making non-canonical mistakes than if the parameter were just named "Pronouns", which are easier to justify, and a less complex subject.
: I think an article exploring [[Gender]] in ''Old School RuneScape'' would be a good thing and an interesting read. Although almost all of the pre-split [[Gender]] article was devoted to the concepts of Player Pronouns or Player Body Types, there were also several lines from the pre-split Gender article I didn't manage to fit into either [[Body type]] nor [[Pronouns]] that could belong in an article dedicated to the examination of [[Gender]] in ''Old School RuneScape''. Here's what I would possibly save/recontextualize for a new [[Gender]] page:
* {{quote|some NPCs appear to be differentiated (although subtly) by gender. For example, [[Ice troll female|female ice trolls]] make use of the [[Ranged]] attack style, while [[Ice troll male|male ice trolls]] use melee.}}

* {{quote|[[Humans Against Monsters|H.A.M.]] members are divided into male and female varieties. Prior to an update, it was easier to pick the pockets of females than males; players could pickpocket a [[female H.A.M. member]] at level 15 [[Thieving]], but needed level 20 Thieving to pickpocket a [[male H.A.M. member]]. [...] Low-level NPCs, known only as "[[Man]]" and "[[Woman]]," are commonly found in [[Lumbridge]] and other places. It is equally easy to pick the pockets of either gender, each requiring only level 1 [[Thieving]].}}

* {{quote|The [[Makeover Mage]] has the ability to change between genders whenever they want to, and does so randomly every few seconds according to their mood. They were the first canonically LGBTQ+ character introduced.}}

* {{quote|In a March 2008 poll, 92% of respondents said their character is the same gender as themselves.<!--{{CitePoll|url=https://secure.runescape.com/m=poll/archive.ws?year=2008&id=228|poll=Player-submitted poll #11|polldate=2008-03-01}}-->}}
* {{quote|In February 2008, {{RSL|Geoff_Iddison|Geoff Iddison}} (the CEO of [[Jagex]] at the time) claimed in an interview that the player base is "over 60 percent male", though the interviewer speculated that the true figure was likely to be higher than this comment would suggest.<!-- {{CiteGeneral|url=http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article3285256.ece|title=Online games group aims for growth the Nintendo way|last=Sabbagh|first=Dan|publisher=Times Online}}--> A poll conducted just one month later showed that 90% of respondents claimed to be male. <!--{{CitePoll|url=https://secure.runescape.com/m=poll/archive.ws?year=2008&id=243|poll=A Friend Indeed|polldate=2008-03-01}}-->}}

: Combined with the interesting trivia you raised about the all-male identifying monk orders, there's definitely enough for a good start on that article for anyone interested in taking it on. Thanks, {{Signatures/Logg}} 14:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

::I can recreate the gender article easily enough, it's just a matter of taking the pre-split article and making a few changes. Speaking of splitting: I was originally opposed to spliting the article into "body type" and "pronouns". But with all the work Logg's put into those new articles, it may overwhelm the gender article to merge them back in. It may better to have separate "gender", "body type", and "pronouns" articles. [[User:Winter Armor|Winter Armor]] ([[User talk:Winter Armor|talk]]) 04:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

As for changing "gender" to "pronouns" in the infobox for characters: If I understand the proposal correctly, I don't think that's a good idea. Preferred pronouns (as we would understand them) are a cultural construct of the modern US/UK. As Logg points out: Even the gender-related cultural constructs of the US/UK have changed in the lifetime of RuneScape. Ask someone from Gilinor "What are your pronouns?", and he'd likely just be confused by the question. Even a lot of modern Americans and Brits would be confused if you asked them that question!

An analogy: Imagine an Indian (from India) going to the United States, and asking someone what his caste has. The American would be confused by the question, because "caste" wouldn't mean anything to him. India has castes, that is a cultural construct of Indian society. But not of American socitey.

Even if we assume that preferred pronouns exist in Gilinor: The real-world has things like "he/him lesbians". Take the NPCs named [[Woman]] ("generic NPC civilians of RuneScape"): We know the gender of those NPCs, it says so right in the name! But for all we know, some of those women could be he/him lesbians or something.

In conclusion: The infobox should generally stick to simple gender, to the plain and simple distention between male and female. [[User:Winter Armor|Winter Armor]] ([[User talk:Winter Armor|talk]]) 04:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

'''Comment''' - Helluva long read. I like your page split. I also like option 2 the most for the infobox. People can fill in the missing/wrong ones as they come across them instead of us just automatically converting everything (sometimes wrongly). {{User:Crow/Signature}} 04:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

'''Comment''' - I also like option 2 on the infoboxes, mainly for the fact that it allows for flexibility on pronoun usage for NPCs that use more than one set of them (ie. [[Kit Breaker]] from the 2024 Pride event, who uses both 'he/him' and 'they/them' according to Mod Maylea, who worked on the event; this can also be seen in the event's transcript where the player both says "I should probably let Kit sort out '''his''' own belongings." and "'''Their''' name is Kit. Kit Breaker."). I am curious about what we are going to do with worn equipment images though — pretty much all of them have either "male" or "female" appended to the end of the file names. Are we going to change all of those to "type A" and "type B"? Are we going to leave them as-is, even if we ''do'' remove the <code>|gender = </code> parameter from Infobox NPC? I think that is definitely something that needs to be concretely discussed and decided upon, since changing ~8,800 file names on all pages that uses them while breaking as little as possible is a bit of an ask, even with bots automating the process. [[User:YoshiFan12|YoshiFan12]] ([[User talk:YoshiFan12|talk]]) 07:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
:'''Update''' - I am now of the opinion that removing/changing the <code>gender</code> infobox parameter and renaming equipment images with "male"/"female" is unnecessary, per the reasoning of both Duralith (it is safe to infer someone else's gender based on context, in the game's case for NPCs, their appearance and the pronouns they use) and Trollius (tweaking/removing the captions of the images on the pages that they are used is far more reasonable and effective, and also can solve formatting issues currently seen only on mobile). Dura's proposal of not touching the <code>gender</code> parameter in favor of adding an optional <code>pronouns</code> parameter for NPCs that require this (such as [[Warmhandz]], Kit Breaker, and [[Soar Leader Pitri]]) is likely the best course of action. [[User:YoshiFan12|YoshiFan12]] ([[User talk:YoshiFan12|talk]]) 18:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

'''Comment''' - I vote for option 2 as well, but I additionally propose a <code>|body type =</code> field to denote the visual representation of the body type of the in-game entities at least for the ones where we know for sure (obviously you can't determine gender for Dagganoths and such) so I also vote to replace (option 3) the <code>|gender =</code> field with that new field. [[User:Speeddymon|Speeddymon]] ([[User talk:Speeddymon|talk]]) 16:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

'''Comment''' - Long, long overdue but I did want to chime in here since it's a topic I care about a fair bit. It took me a while to think things over and get my thoughts on the topic a bit more organized but I at least wanted to participate in the discussion here before it closed. As background/context for what I'm saying here, the update that I suspect motivated this discussion in the first place was one I was super excited for, and I logged in for the first time in probably weeks to make use of the shiny new "they/them" option.
: '''Regarding the infobox''' - I think doing anything automatically with regard to the <code>gender</code> parameter would be a misstep. With that being said, I think I would like to see it remain as an optional infobox parameter. In the large majority of cases, it's safe to infer someone's gender based on context, and I think that applies to the game as well. If it's unclear, the parameter can simply be omitted. I would support the addition of an optional <code>pronouns</code> parameter to supplement this, which could be populated based on dialogue, information from JMods, etc. when that sort of information is available to work off of.

: '''Regarding the Gender page''' - I don't think it needs to go away, nor do I think it should. Gender as a concept wasn't removed from the game with this update, it's just something that the game doesn't (directly) address . [[Body Type]] and [[Pronouns]] as articles as you proposed both seem like solid ideas. Information directly relevant to those articles could be moved to their respective pages, while anything that doesn't cleanly fit on either one of them could potentially go on the Gender page. 
[[User:Duralith|Duralith]] ([[User talk:Duralith|talk]]) 22:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

:: The [[Body Type]] and [[Pronouns]] articles are probably here to stay! I opposed their creation, but as things stand now: They go into more detail than would be appropriate for a broader gender article. In other words: They should remain their own articles, to avoid overwhelming the Gender article.

:: I agree with you that the [[Gender]] article should not have gone away. I think it was a mistake to redirect that article to [[Pronowns]], for reasons already explained on this page and my talk page. Plus, as you said: The Gender page is useful for information which doesn't cleanly fit on either one of them (and entire sections of the [[Body Type]] article are like that, in my opinion). [[User:Winter Armor|Winter Armor]] ([[User talk:Winter Armor|talk]]) 01:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

'''Comment''' - I don't think "gender" needs its own page in terms of just saying that some male or female npcs are male or female. Anything particularly interesting can go to Trivia, npc bodytype could be kept in the infobox but I don't think it should be visible, it is a configuration on the player bodytype just like hair color, clothing etc.  I don't think [[guard]] needs a massively bloated infobox explaining that i.e. 'Edgeville 1' is wearing bronze sword, iron chainbody, body type 1, no beard etc.

[[Character customization]] currently redirects to [[Character]], which is pretty barebones. [[Character customization]] could be fleshed out to show the various character customization options, and the various NPCs that can be used to customize the character, it could even have a history section showing how its changed. Basically exactly the way [[Body type]] and [[pronouns]]  are now, but for every character customization option all in one place. Delete [[gender]], move content from [[body type]] and [[pronouns]] and [[makeover]] to [[Character customization]] and have them redirect, and add new writeups on base outfits, skin color, shoes, wrist styles etc. which currently completely lack pages. [[User:Wizzyhatg|Wizzyhatg]] ([[User talk:Wizzyhatg|talk]]) 00:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

:You might be onto something with your idea for a [[Character customization]] article. However, I don't think Gender should be merged into that, as that would overwhelm the Character customization article with gender information. [https://oldschool.runescape.wiki/w/Gender?oldid=14744085 This] is what the Gender article looked like before it was redirected. Plus, there's still the in-universe stuff on gender to cover (such as the Edgeville Monastery thing that DrYoshiyahu pointed out), which the gender article didn't address before it was redirected. [[User:Winter Armor|Winter Armor]] ([[User talk:Winter Armor|talk]]) 01:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that old gender article should exist either. 'Player characters' can be covered on [[character customization]] subsection body types. 'Historical Behaviors' should be trivia on the respective quest pages. 'Non-player characters' doesn't seem super valuable, the Makeover Mage line could be a trivia on its page if there is a citation? Overall I don't think this deserves its own page tbh.  Player character customization/differences resulting from customization (notable body type specific models, note that NPC dialogue changes etc.) on [[character customization]], interesting gender related trivia on the page it is trivia about. [[User:Wizzyhatg|Wizzyhatg]] ([[User talk:Wizzyhatg|talk]]) 02:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

'''Comment''' - I also think that infobox option 2 is likely the best. Regarding [[User:YoshiFan12|YoshiFan12]]s comment on images, I think renaming the images themselves is unnecessary, the descriptions below should be changed. Furthermore, where there are only 2 styles of an equipment set, I think it would be best to format the images as in [[Justiciar armour]] and [[Ahrim the Blighted's equipment]], leaving off any description altogether, as compared to [[Guthan the Infested's equipment]] or [[Rock-shell armour]]. I think that it provides a cleaner look, especially on mobile where the thumbnails render above the article. I think for sets with multiple looks, like [[Torva armour]] or [[Void Knight equipment]], the various appearances can live in a "Gallery" section like they are now, with Body Type descriptors below the images. For these, I am a fan of including a chathead image at the beginning of the article, but I understand that could be a matter of preference. [[User:Trollius|Trollius]] ([[User talk:Trollius|talk]]) 03:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

'''Comment''' - I'm a big advocate for updating the wiki to separate [[body type]] and [[pronouns]] from the no longer present [[gender]] player customization. Not only does it foster inclusion and better aligns with real life, it's also how Jagex has decided the game works and the wiki should reflect that. Another aspect I've noticed from the ones listed so far, is every page relating to armour from a set such as [[Bandos tassets#Gallery|bandos tassets]] or [[Armadyl chestplate#Gallery|armadyl chestplate]] has a gallery section that references gender with "A male player wearing the full (Bandos armour) set.". Which should be changed to "A body type A player wearing...". Any conflation of the new body types with Male/Female just serves to undermine the reason those changes were made in the first place, and makes the wiki less accurate. It would be a lot of effort to change each gallery section manually, but its current state does not match the player in-game. --[[User:Perky Pat|Perky Pat]] ([[User talk:Perky Pat|talk]]) 10:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:'''Update''' - I went ahead and updated many of the equipment pages, such as [[Ancestral robes]] to have body type instead of male/female in their captions. Would value feedback on wording, and am holding off on more edits until we reach a consensus. --[[User:Perky Pat|Perky Pat]] ([[User talk:Perky Pat|talk]]) 14:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)