[quote name="Jhortanas" date="2024-07-14 12:44:37" ]
No support for either of these renames, because IMO it's been long enough by now that changing them would just be confusing + break BBCode. Plus, wisteria are generally much thicker and shorter than the fronds in the gene, so this just seems inaccurate in a different way?
[/quote]
[quote name="Contaminate" date="2024-07-14 17:47:33" ][s]Flair was renamed almost the same day[/s]. Willow has been out for a long while and it’s fine as it is, so no support on a change simply cuz it’s not needed
Edit: Went searching and turns out the official rename was two months later due to being a typo. It was brought up in the announcement thread that they’d used the wrong word for the naming theme though
[/quote]
I think this is a bit of a weak reason to deny a name change
Perhaps one of the most infamous examples of a major name change is the Familiar that is now known as the Pronghorn Hunter, which came out in 2016, [url=https://www1.flightrising.com/forums/ann/1753555/1]when the Ghostlight Ruins came out[/url].
By this point, many people would have written it via codes, but in 2019 (can't link directly, sorry), but if you search the [url=https://www1.flightrising.com/site/dev-tracker/8?developer=14&source=site+status]dev trackers[/url], Undel announced it was changed:
[img]https://i.imgur.com/PMzXhdh.png[/img]
I might be wrong in this case, but I'm pretty sure that staff have a background method to change [b]all[/b] coding that use the old name so that no coding will be broken.
So my point still stands. If they're willing to rename something (due to cultural insensitivity) 3 years later, changing something that is botanically incorrect to its correct name 8 months later should be no issue.
Jhortanas wrote on 2024-07-14 12:44:37:
No support for either of these renames, because IMO it's been long enough by now that changing them would just be confusing + break BBCode. Plus, wisteria are generally much thicker and shorter than the fronds in the gene, so this just seems inaccurate in a different way?
Contaminate wrote on 2024-07-14 17:47:33:
Flair was renamed almost the same day. Willow has been out for a long while and it’s fine as it is, so no support on a change simply cuz it’s not needed
Edit: Went searching and turns out the official rename was two months later due to being a typo. It was brought up in the announcement thread that they’d used the wrong word for the naming theme though
I think this is a bit of a weak reason to deny a name change
Perhaps one of the most infamous examples of a major name change is the Familiar that is now known as the Pronghorn Hunter, which came out in 2016,
when the Ghostlight Ruins came out.
By this point, many people would have written it via codes, but in 2019 (can't link directly, sorry), but if you search the
dev trackers, Undel announced it was changed:
I might be wrong in this case, but I'm pretty sure that staff have a background method to change
all coding that use the old name so that no coding will be broken.
So my point still stands. If they're willing to rename something (due to cultural insensitivity) 3 years later, changing something that is botanically incorrect to its correct name 8 months later should be no issue.
While I agree that Wisteria would fit better, unfortunately I'm going to say no support because changing it would mess up the BBCode of anyone who had the willow gene anywhere. I've had code bricked due to name changes and it can be really annoying, especially if you wrote down the item several times. The other examples of name changes are largely due to the names being offensive or typos, while changing willow to wisteria is due to personal opinions on how (in)accurate the name is to the gene's appearance. I don't think it is a big enough problem to warrant changing the name over half a year after the gene's release; I don't think it's comparable to a name being changed because the original was culturally insensitive. If this was mentioned like a week or two after auraboa's came out then I'd be on board.
While I agree that Wisteria would fit better, unfortunately I'm going to say no support because changing it would mess up the BBCode of anyone who had the willow gene anywhere. I've had code bricked due to name changes and it can be really annoying, especially if you wrote down the item several times. The other examples of name changes are largely due to the names being offensive or typos, while changing willow to wisteria is due to personal opinions on how (in)accurate the name is to the gene's appearance. I don't think it is a big enough problem to warrant changing the name over half a year after the gene's release; I don't think it's comparable to a name being changed because the original was culturally insensitive. If this was mentioned like a week or two after auraboa's came out then I'd be on board.
Cultural insensivity is a little more dire than a botanical inaccuracy. (Tbh, it doesn't really look very similar to wisteria to me either?)
Cultural insensivity is a little more dire than a botanical inaccuracy. (Tbh, it doesn't really look very similar to wisteria to me either?)
[quote name="Alyxsandre" date="2024-07-14 18:40:03" ]
[quote name="Jhortanas" date="2024-07-14 12:44:37" ]
No support for either of these renames, because IMO it's been long enough by now that changing them would just be confusing + break BBCode. Plus, wisteria are generally much thicker and shorter than the fronds in the gene, so this just seems inaccurate in a different way?
[/quote]
[quote name="Contaminate" date="2024-07-14 17:47:33" ][s]Flair was renamed almost the same day[/s]. Willow has been out for a long while and it’s fine as it is, so no support on a change simply cuz it’s not needed
Edit: Went searching and turns out the official rename was two months later due to being a typo. It was brought up in the announcement thread that they’d used the wrong word for the naming theme though
[/quote]
I think this is a bit of a weak reason to deny a name change
Perhaps one of the most infamous examples of a major name change is the Familiar that is now known as the Pronghorn Hunter, which came out in 2016, [url=https://www1.flightrising.com/forums/ann/1753555/1]when the Ghostlight Ruins came out[/url].
By this point, many people would have written it via codes, but in 2019 (can't link directly, sorry), but if you search the [url=https://www1.flightrising.com/site/dev-tracker/8?developer=14&source=site+status]dev trackers[/url], Undel announced it was changed:
[img]https://i.imgur.com/PMzXhdh.png[/img]
I might be wrong in this case, but I'm pretty sure that staff have a background method to change [b]all[/b] coding that use the old name so that no coding will be broken.
So my point still stands. If they're willing to rename something (due to cultural insensitivity) 3 years later, changing something that is botanically incorrect to its correct name 8 months later should be no issue.
[/quote]
It’s as accurate as Keel, Peacock, and Eel are.
Citing a rename done because of sensitivity concerns and the other was a genuine mistake, Willow not looking enough like a willow tree (entirely subjective honestly, I think it looks plenty like one) is a very empty reason for wanting it changed
Alyxsandre wrote on 2024-07-14 18:40:03:
Jhortanas wrote on 2024-07-14 12:44:37:
No support for either of these renames, because IMO it's been long enough by now that changing them would just be confusing + break BBCode. Plus, wisteria are generally much thicker and shorter than the fronds in the gene, so this just seems inaccurate in a different way?
Contaminate wrote on 2024-07-14 17:47:33:
Flair was renamed almost the same day. Willow has been out for a long while and it’s fine as it is, so no support on a change simply cuz it’s not needed
Edit: Went searching and turns out the official rename was two months later due to being a typo. It was brought up in the announcement thread that they’d used the wrong word for the naming theme though
I think this is a bit of a weak reason to deny a name change
Perhaps one of the most infamous examples of a major name change is the Familiar that is now known as the Pronghorn Hunter, which came out in 2016,
when the Ghostlight Ruins came out.
By this point, many people would have written it via codes, but in 2019 (can't link directly, sorry), but if you search the
dev trackers, Undel announced it was changed:
I might be wrong in this case, but I'm pretty sure that staff have a background method to change
all coding that use the old name so that no coding will be broken.
So my point still stands. If they're willing to rename something (due to cultural insensitivity) 3 years later, changing something that is botanically incorrect to its correct name 8 months later should be no issue.
It’s as accurate as Keel, Peacock, and Eel are.
Citing a rename done because of sensitivity concerns and the other was a genuine mistake, Willow not looking enough like a willow tree (entirely subjective honestly, I think it looks plenty like one) is a very empty reason for wanting it changed
Support, glad someone else noticed this haha
Support, glad someone else noticed this haha
hello please remember to switch your sig out
?But it doesn't look anything like wisteria either?
It would just be changing one 'inaccurate' name to another.
Actually, I take that back, at least somewhat - once you look at it in any color other than light purple it's less suggestive of wisteria flowers than it is of willow branches.
?But it doesn't look anything like wisteria either?
It would just be changing one 'inaccurate' name to another.
Actually, I take that back, at least somewhat - once you look at it in any color other than light purple it's less suggestive of wisteria flowers than it is of willow branches.
Not weighing in again on the support/no support since I've already voiced my support (and I do believe this suggestion was also discussed at the time of release? unless I'm just thinking of like... mutterings that weren't directly suggestions??); however, I do want to mention that I'm genuinely very surprised to see comments that the gene looks no more like wisteria than it does like willow.
If you're already familiar with wisteria flowers, the resemblance is unmissable and recognition is immediate: the structure of the flowers and the way they dangle is incredibly distinctive!
Regarding comparisons to Peacock, Keel, and Eel: the difference with all of those is that (1) most importantly, they are already heavily stylized; and (2) there is no other thing that they seem to be clearly based off of instead.
...plus the name "Eyespots" was already taken, ahaha.
Not weighing in again on the support/no support since I've already voiced my support (and I do believe this suggestion was also discussed at the time of release? unless I'm just thinking of like... mutterings that weren't directly suggestions??); however, I do want to mention that I'm genuinely very surprised to see comments that the gene looks no more like wisteria than it does like willow.
If you're already familiar with wisteria flowers, the resemblance is unmissable and recognition is immediate: the structure of the flowers and the way they dangle is incredibly distinctive!
Regarding comparisons to Peacock, Keel, and Eel: the difference with all of those is that (1) most importantly, they are already heavily stylized; and (2) there is no other thing that they seem to be clearly based off of instead.
...plus the name "Eyespots" was already taken, ahaha.
|
she/her | FR +2
previously Tuberose
|
this gene always reminded me of acacias more, but i've never seen a wisteria and they seem to come from the same family at least. this is definitely not a willow. i haven't thought about plants in english or auraboas much so i never realized an acacia wasn't supposed to be called a willow, lol
we had like a few hundred ancient gene items renamed after years of existing recently, and that broke all of the codes and the world didn't end, so there's no reason not to rename this one
this gene always reminded me of acacias more, but i've never seen a wisteria and they seem to come from the same family at least. this is definitely not a willow. i haven't thought about plants in english or auraboas much so i never realized an acacia wasn't supposed to be called a willow, lol
we had like a few hundred ancient gene items renamed after years of existing recently, and that broke all of the codes and the world didn't end, so there's no reason not to rename this one
Tbh the gene reminds me a bit of the pussywillow:
[img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=10&bodygene=0&breed=24&element=6&eyetype=16&gender=1&tert=2&tertgene=227&winggene=0&wings=10&auth=befda21b549788c68313632df21d720c43c8f5d6&dummyext=prev.png[/img][img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=10&bodygene=0&breed=24&element=6&eyetype=16&gender=0&tert=2&tertgene=227&winggene=0&wings=10&auth=75b920537683e9a1a1febcb4e5c66fa00baff681&dummyext=prev.png[/img]
[img]https://www.knippelgardencentre.com/cdn/shop/files/weepingpussywillow_1024x1024.jpg[/img]
[img]https://www.brighterblooms.com/cdn/shop/files/Pussy_Willow_7_FGT_grande.jpg[/img]
[img]https://www.torontomastergardeners.ca/wp-content/uploads/formidable/2/IMG_4695-rotated.jpg[/img]
[img]https://bowerandbranch.com/cdn/shop/products/WeepingPussyWillow.jpg[/img]
It's also possible the detail is just more stylised, as while up-close the flowers don't look similar, from afar I'd say it looks decently like willow flowers:
[img]https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/1/purple-weeping-willow-jessica-miller.jpg[/img]
[img]https://toadstoolseeds.com/cdn/shop/products/57_0178da2d-6d1f-4d01-aa16-44dcce08597c.jpg[/img]
[quote name="Teeka" date="2024-07-15 02:16:23" ]
?But it doesn't look anything like wisteria either?
It would just be changing one 'inaccurate' name to another.
Actually, I take that back, at least somewhat - once you look at it in any color other than light purple it's less suggestive of wisteria flowers than it is of willow branches.
[/quote]
This pretty much. The OP is kinda padding their case a bit by using a purple-range tert [s]and also their willow pics are kinda blurry compared to the wisteria pics but whatever[/s] because it definitely looks more like willow when you use a green tert (or the pink referenced above).
I'm passingly familiar with both willows and wisteria but regardless in this case, I think it's less about what it most closely resembles and more what it "evokes".
And in this case, I'd argue that, outside of a purple tert, my first thought when looking at this gene is "Ooo willow branches". I also think your average user is likely to be more familiar with willows and what they generally look like than a more specific plant like wisteria.
[s]It also seems a tad rude to imply that people are disagreeing purely because they don't "know plants well enough" when several people have pointed out other plant comparisons.[/s]
I wouldn't be fussed [i]if[/i] they changed it at this point, but I think it's just swapping out one "somewhat inaccurate in certain cases" name for another "somewhat inaccurate in certain cases" name (because seriously, this tert does not look like wisteria when it's a green, yellow, or brown tert).
Teeka wrote on 2024-07-15 02:16:23:
?But it doesn't look anything like wisteria either?
It would just be changing one 'inaccurate' name to another.
Actually, I take that back, at least somewhat - once you look at it in any color other than light purple it's less suggestive of wisteria flowers than it is of willow branches.
This pretty much. The OP is kinda padding their case a bit by using a purple-range tert
and also their willow pics are kinda blurry compared to the wisteria pics but whatever because it definitely looks more like willow when you use a green tert (or the pink referenced above).
I'm passingly familiar with both willows and wisteria but regardless in this case, I think it's less about what it most closely resembles and more what it "evokes".
And in this case, I'd argue that, outside of a purple tert, my first thought when looking at this gene is "Ooo willow branches". I also think your average user is likely to be more familiar with willows and what they generally look like than a more specific plant like wisteria.
It also seems a tad rude to imply that people are disagreeing purely because they don't "know plants well enough" when several people have pointed out other plant comparisons.
I wouldn't be fussed
if they changed it at this point, but I think it's just swapping out one "somewhat inaccurate in certain cases" name for another "somewhat inaccurate in certain cases" name (because seriously, this tert does not look like wisteria when it's a green, yellow, or brown tert).
