Hi DeeDeeEn, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please be careful when editing material that it is based on WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, is context-relevant and does not create confusion. I have had to revert your good faith edits to the "Pontoon" article for several reasons. First, it introduced American spelling or terminology to an English game. Second, it changed the wording and meaning so that the text no longer reflected the source on which it was based. Each of the rule sets is based on a specific source. Third, in replacing "he/his/him" by "they/theirs/them" - something Wikipedia does not require - it introduced confusion about which player or players we are talking about. There is no point having game rules that are gender neutral if a reader cannot work out how to play the game. However, since "he/his/him" is often a target on Wikipedia, I have replaced almost all instances of "he/his/him" with text that is still hopefully clear. The remaining four have become "his or her" because rewording would have been tortuous; this is still considered acceptable by Wikipedia guidelines. As a card game researcher my primary aim is to bring accurate and clear information to readers and I hope you feel able to support that. Thank you. Bermicourt (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt notification. Per the optional method of WP:CYCLE, I have attempted to edit and am willing to discuss the edits further if absolutely required to. The following ideas are what I currently believe:

Per the first point, has there been any consensus regarding American usage for articles about English games?

Unless the concern is about consistency (where, for example, American and British usage are mixed in one article), I believe either is acceptable in an article.

As for the second point, I have attempted to retain as much information as possible while removing unclear or otherwise more awkward text. Wikipedia does not allow close paraphrasing or direct word-to-word copies from sources (as with all treatments for copyrighted text), and as such, any editor may use their own words to summarize a source.

Regarding the third point, Wikipedia already has a Manual of Style about gender-neutral language, that being WP:GNL. I have attempted to reduce confusion as to who is who. There might be some sentences which have become unclear for other reasons; everyone may edit and reword them with me.

As you are a card game researcher, I do understand and respect your intentions. However, your fellow editors might help improve articles in other aspects. I hope you understand this and that we can improve articles together in a better way. Thank you as well. DeeDeeEn (talk) 10:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Let me take those points in order.

In general, you're right - no particular form of regional English (American, Canadian, British, Irish, Indian, etc.) is preferred. However, there are exceptions. Usually the English used to write the original article is preferred for reasons of consistency. Also if there is a strong national tie to the subject then the relevant regional version of English should be used. Finally, it makes sense to reflect the language of the source used, especially when contrasting different rule sets. In this case, the original article was written in British English and Pontoon is a quintessentially English game. To be honest, 99% of the article is written in language common to all forms of English.

That's right and, again, I don't copy sources verbatim, but summarise. Nevertheless, the sense of the original shouldn't change and the rules should be the same, even if phrased differently. If text is taken from a cited source, it shouldn't really be altered significantly without reference to that source, otherwise it can render the citation invalid.

I'm very familiar with WP:GNL and have been going through card game articles (including those I originally drafted myself) with the aim of removing "he/him/his" (which is the only form that gets objected) and replacing it with gender neutral text that still makes clear who we're talking about. I occasionally use "their" etc., but have found that it very often leaves uncertainty about whether we're talking about one player or several, e.g. "the dealer deals five cards to each player, face down, and then they turn over their hand" may leave the reader wondering if all players turn over their hand or just the dealer. Or "the dealer deals five cards to the opponent (avoiding "his" opponent) and five to themself. Then they turn over their cards." Who turns what over? Interestingly, almost all card game authors use "he/him/his" and explain that this is to give absolute clarity about the rules and that for "he/him/his" you can read "she/her/her" or any other pronoun you like, but it's referring to the player just mentioned by name e.g. "the dealer" or "forehand". Some authors use "she/her/her" either exclusively or alternately with "he/him/his". And many do this minimally because sometimes its okay to repeat "the dealer" or to recast the sentence to avoid gender pronouns completely. It's an art and a difficult one.

I am grateful that you've attempted to improve the article in good faith especially wrt gender neutrality, because it was originally written using the traditional "he/him/his" format and there are certainly ways of phrasing the text to be more gender neutral, so thank you for drawing it to my attention. As I say I'm working my way through card game articles with that in mine. Bermicourt (talk) 12:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I shall ignore the first two points, as they are adequately resolved. :)

For the third point, I think I can attempt to be neutral while still resolving the problematic behavior of uncertainty - for example, "the dealer deals five cards to each player, face down, and turns over just their cards" and "the dealer deals five cards to each player, face down, then turns over all dealt cards" or "the dealer deals five cards to themself and their adversary then turns over their own cards" and "the dealer deals five cards to themself and their adversary then turns over all ten cards". In your second example, I interpreted it as if the first "they" of the second sentence referred to just the dealer and implied that "their" followed suit.

I do agree that rewording sentences for neutrality is difficult, but the advantage is worth the trouble, all for making Wikipedia better. I really need to read more sources dedicated to documenting board games.

I shall continue to attempt to be bold (with the clear intention of improving Wikipedia) and will seek consensus from discussions whenever needed. Thank you for being a dedicated Wikipedian. DeeDeeEn (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:) Bermicourt (talk) 11:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one final thing: I mistyped the wikilink - should have referred to MOS:GNL instead. :p DeeDeeEn (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you offer your thoughts regarding the question I asked here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]