From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
This template is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |
 |
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
 Template |
This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale. |
|
|
|
|
This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please review the discussion(s) if considering re-nomination:
- No consensus, 12 August 2005, TfD log
|
[edit] Add Unlabeled sexual orientation
Should Unlabeled sexual orientation sexual orientation be added to Orientations section of this template?--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 04:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support, it is important to the discussions of sexual orientations.--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 04:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- oppose (weak). 'unlabled' is not to my knowledge an orientation recognized in the conventional literature on this subject. I'm willing to change my opinion with if proper sources can be provided, but otherwise I think the template should restrict itself to the accepted usages of the term. --Ludwigs2 05:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
-
- ""Many cultures use identity labels to describe people who express these attractions. In the United States the most frequent labels are lesbians (women attracted to women), gay men (men attracted to men), and bisexual people (men or women attracted to both sexes). However, some people may use different labels or none at all."" - quote from the American Phycological Association--cooljuno411 07:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose until we find plenty of secondary sources (reliable sources) which indicate this is a necessary inclusion with sufficient weight to be presented alongside the other orientations which are already in the template. My google~fu first returned a few hundred search-engine results, but examining them more deeply revealed that there were only 44 actual results (the rest were redundantly similar to the first 44) ...and nearly all of the search-engine results were mirrors and echo-chambers of these very Wikipedia pages mentioning "unlabeled sexual orientation". This "unlabeled sexual orientation" category is only a micrometer away from Original Research, and only seems to exist as a technicality, rather than as an actual notable item of scholarly research— and doesn't even seem like a very interesting topic of gossip (to me). The template is already stuffed to the gills with all of the elaborations which have received notable academic mention, and until i actually find a textbook or a scholarly article published by a reputable researcher using the term "unlabeled sexual orientation" i am going to presume that the micrometer is quite insufficient. Maybe in the future there will be a valid reason for inclusion, but i can't find one by searching on the internet, and i will continue to find it extremely dubious unless some sexology experts present some sources. Thanks ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 05:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose with hellfire - Here we go again.. same editor, different article wanting to be included. Unlabeled sexual orientation should be merged with Pomosexual and shouldn't exist at all. As was noted in an above discussion, both Perceived sexual orientation and Undefined sexual orientation which now redirects to Unlabeled sexual orientation, were branched out of Pomosexual by the nom Cooljuno. This article, like the ones discussed above, is nothing but a POV fork. I'll also point out that the article, since unfortunately it does exist, should be in Category:Sexual orientation and that category is already linked in this template as List (category) of sexual orientations so no sense in creating redundancy. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 05:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment This appears to be no more than an attempt to lend credibility to an article that's currently in AfD. Gigs (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
-
- No. Unlabeled Sexual Orienation was added to AFD AFTER i posted this discussion.... it appears someone is trying to kill it before it gets on the template.--cooljuno411 07:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but that article is just one more in a string of articles you've created with the sole purpose of changing the definition of sexual orientation. please... --Ludwigs2 14:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support inclusion, if survives AfD. Article is relevent and would add alternative viewpoints / diversity to the sexual orientation series of articles. Could use more academic sources, but it still is relevent to the template's topic, and does have some sourcing (though could use more). Article creator's previous articles should not be used to pre-judge this one. This one actually has a little larger scope than the previous articles. Wikignome0529 (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Unlabelled is not an orientation, it is a lack of use of the common terms for orientation. It is no more valid than adding "None of your business" as an orientation.YobMod 13:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- LOlz... you clearly don't understand.... it's not "none of your business what my orientation is", it is "i don't label myself with an orientation because you look silly and stupid when you do. Try reading the article?????"--cooljuno411 19:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to split this discussion across two separate pages, but i've been trying to find WP:V and WP:RS to support some kind of potential inclusion; and now i've mentioned the fruitless results in a comment on the AFD discussion page for Unlabeled sexual orientation. If we can't even contrive a legitimate article about the topic of unlabeled sexual orientation then i don't see how we can include it in our templates. Thank you ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 11:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, i have done some cleanup[1] on another related template[2] where Cooljuno411 was trying to circumvent the edit-war and deletion consensus. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 02:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
