Jump to content

Template talk:Sex/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Non-penetrative sex

[edit]

why is fingering listed under non-penetrative sex? how is inserting ones finger into an orifice anything but penetration????99.153.29.112 (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was grouped under non-penetrative sex because it is listed on that page as being a form of non-penetrative sex.
However, looking at the other pages on topic, definitions of what is penetrative sex seem to vary - some just define penetration with sexual anatomy, others include use of other body parts. (Also, apparently, not all fingering involves penetration.) Zodon (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

Dear user:qrc2006: I am one of the contributors to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and Sexuality, and as such, spend a majority of my time on sexology and sexuality articles. You might like to help with that project if you have an interest in the subject.

We also have a portal sexuality that you could help with as it needs updating on a regular basis. The featured article needs to change oaccasionally, as does the Featured Picture and the "Did you know" section.

The problem with what you are attempting with your template is that the field of sexology and sexuality (abbreviated to "sex" in your template) is very, very broad. And that is limiting it to human sexuality, and not including "sex" related topics of other animals.

Look at these to get an idea. Look at Category:Sexology, Category:Human sexuality, List of sexology topics, Category:Sexuality-related lists, category:sex moves, List of sex positions, sex acts, List of BDSM topics, Category:Sex education and of course category:sex.

How your template could represent all of these is hard to imagine. But, give it your best shot. Atom 21:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

everything has a hierarchy to it, perhaps the box could just refer to top or mid level hierarchy pages and let those pages be used for directing users to low level details pages. Though a lot of these higher order pages probably would need to be created first. Mathmo Talk 18:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibilities to add

[edit]

Sexual orientation: Bisexuality, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality

Asexuality, Autosexuality, Intersexuality, Monosexuality, Pansexuality

See template:sexual orientation

DSM-IV Codes#Paraphilias Paraphilia: Exhibitionism, Fetishism, Frotteurism, Sexual Masochism, Pedophilia, Sexual Sadism, Transvestic fetishism, Voyeurism

Apparently Zoophilia (in your list) is no longer a paraphilia according to DSM-IV

Non-DSM Paraphilias might include (*pedophilia: sexual attraction to prepubescent children

Balloon fetishism -- breast fetishism -- foot fetishism (podophilia) -- fur fetishism -- leather fetishism -- lipstick fetishism -- medical fetishism -- panty fetishism -- robot fetishism -- rubber fetishism -- shoe fetishism -- smoking fetishism -- spandex fetishism -- transvestic fetishism (see below)
  • Frotteurism: sexual arousal from the recurrent urge or behavior of touching or rubbing against a nonconsenting person
  • Galactophilia: sexual attraction to human milk or lactating women (incorrect term)
  • Gerontophilia: sexual attraction towards the elderly
  • Haematophilia: sexual attraction involving blood (either on a sex partner/attractive person or the liquid itself; not to be confused with haemophilia, a genetic disorder of the blood)
  • Harpaxophilia: sexual arousal from being the victim of a robbery or burglary
  • Hematolagnia: sexual attraction to blood
  • Hybristophilia: sexual arousal to people who have committed crimes, in particular cruel or outrageous crimes
  • Infantilism: sexual pleasure from dressing, acting, or being treated as a baby
  • Klismaphilia: sexual pleasure from enemas
  • Lust murder: sexual arousal through committing murder
  • Macrophilia: sexual attraction to larger people and large things (including larger body organs such as breasts and genitalia)
  • Maiesiophilia: sexual attraction to childbirth or pregnant women
  • Masochism: is the recurrent urge or behavior of wanting to be humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer
  • Microphilia: sexual attraction to smaller people and things of smaller size
  • Mysophilia: sexual attraction to soiled, dirty, foul or decaying material
  • Necrophilia: sexual attraction to corpses
  • Necrozoophilia: sexual attraction to the corpses or killings of animals (also known as necrobestiality)
  • Nepiophilia: the same as infantophilia sexual attraction to children between the age of 0 - 3 yrs.
  • Pedophilia: sexual attraction to prepubescent children (also spelt paedophilia in some countries)
  • Pictophilia: sexual attraction to pictorial pornography/erotic art
  • Plushophilia: sexual attraction to stuffed toys or people in animal costume, such as theme park characters
  • Pyrophilia: sexual arousal through watching, setting, hearing/talking/fantasizing about fire
  • Retifism: sexual arousal from shoes
  • Sadism: sexual arousal from giving pain
  • Sitophilia: sexual arousal from food
  • Somnophilia: sexual arousal from sleeping or unconscious people
  • Spectrophilia: sexual attraction to ghosts
  • Telephone scatologia: being sexually aroused by making obscene telephone calls
  • Teratophilia: sexual attraction to deformed or monstrous people
  • Toonophilia: love (or sexual arousal) to cartoon characters/situations
  • Transformation fetish: sexual arousal from depictions of transformations of people into objects or other beings
  • Transvestic fetishism: is a sexual attraction towards the clothing of the opposite gender (also known as transvestitism)
  • Trichophilia: love (or sexual arousal) from hair
  • Urolagnia: sexual attraction to urine
  • Vorarephilia: sexual attraction to being eaten by, and/or eating, another person or creature
  • Voyeurism: sexual arousal through watching others having sex (also includes the recurrent urge or behavior to observe an unsuspecting person who is naked, disrobing or engaging in sexual activities, see peeping tom)
  • Xenophilia: sexual attraction to foreigners (in science fiction, can also mean sexual attraction to aliens)
  • Zoophilia: emotional or sexual attraction to animals
  • Zoosadism: the sexual enjoyment of causing pain and suffering to animals

It's test. I could't post a message...

Scope too broad?

[edit]

It seems to me that this template tries to cover way too much ground on such a wide ranging topic as sex. In such a state, it doesn't appear to provide the comprehensiveness that a navigation template should. The list of articles to the right of the five main groups are all limited to varying degrees. Also, the template for the most part excludes aspects of sex and reproduction for non-human organisms. I think a template such as this could be the start of something very good, so I'd like to propose that it be split into five separate templates, one each to cover the five main groups to the left. Thoughts? Robotman1974 17:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a template that covers sex positions, so I'm going to take those out of this template. Robotman1974 16:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, I think linking to the basic topic of sexual positions would be worthwhile. Subsolar 04:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The whole anatomy section is redundant as (literally) any part of the body will already be covered by a sexual fetish. --Philip Laurence 02:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but some parts are more clearly or directly sexual than others. Subsolar 04:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is again becoming too large, and should be reduced to just the top-level topics, say

  • Acts and positions
  • Ethics
  • History
  • Identity
  • In Society
  • Law
  • Physiology
  • Pornography and erotica
  • Paraphilia and fetishes
  • Relationships
  • Reproduction
  • Sex work and prostitution

Maybe some of those could be split or combined, but could we agree that approximately that many topics would be appropriate? There are hundreds of sex-related topics, we can't have them all there. Subsolar (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how these new categories would improve the current shorter categorization. "Paraphilias & Fetishes" is fine as a parent category (the content is too vast for a general template such as this). "Pornography and erotica" would mean the elimination of the "Entertainment" section which in turn would eliminate a place for "Sex toys". How many articles exist on "Sex work and prostitution" to warrant a section?... I can't think of any. Also, "Physiology" & "Reproduction" are of similar clinical and scientific ilk to be covered in the same breath... whereas the removal of a health and education section is puzzling. Redblueball (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BDSM

[edit]

I think too much of importance given to this. Changing to "Feelings"(or anything such), and include orgasm, sexual arousal, sexual attraction, BDSM(b&d, s&m) etc. would be fine. (Comment on my sorting by importance are welcome, Foreplay is kept with sexual intercourse, as sexual intercourse includes anal and oral sex also.) Lara_bran 06:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed BDSM section to see also. Lara_bran 08:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reproductive medicine

[edit]

Since there is now an article on Reproductive medicine, would it make sense to remove Andrology, Gynecology and Urology from the health section, and just use reproductive medicine? Zodon (talk) 03:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

irrumatio

[edit]

is not covered by oral sex and non-penatrative sex, or else it would not have its own article. a blob job is performed by the sucker, irrumatio is performed by the suckee, it is a different sex act all together, or just like anal and vaginal sex are different even though both are the sticking in removal and repeat of the penis.Chuletadechancho (talk) 07:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles on these topics say otherwise. Non-penatrative sex lists irrumatio as one form of non-penatrative sex; likewise, oral sex lists it as one variant. The article on irrumatio says it refers to oral or non-penatrative sex, with overtones of rape. All three of the major concepts that the term refers to are on the template.
As noted elsewhere in this talk page, the sex template covers a very broad area. It would be uselessly large if it listed every article relating to sex. Note that most of the variants of non-penatrative sex and oral sex are not on the template. However the variants are easily accessed from the respective main articles. And if one is specifically looking for the term, a search will find it. Zodon (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization of the template

[edit]

I moved the following note here from my user talk page since it relates to editing this template. Zodon (talk) 11:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you reverted my edit to Template:Sex. I've restored it because without the <includeonly></includeonly> tags, the template itself appears in the Sex category which is incorrect. I think your edit comment was regarding the weird character in the sort field for the category, but I didn't put that in there; it was already there when I came to the template. If you want to change that, be my guest, but please leave the <includeonly></includeonly>. Thanks! --Sapphic (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putting [[Category:Sex|τ]] inside includeonly changes the behavior of the template so that it categorizes every page that it is on into category sex. This is undesirable since most of these pages are more appropriately categorized in subcategories.
When templates are put into categories with non-templates, the templates are usually sorted under the letter tau. (Which groups them at the end). I haven't found much documentation of this, (there is one mention buried in the code of this Template:Template category ) but a google search reveals many examples of the practice. Like so much of WikiPedia, this is just an observation of what I have seen done.
As no basis was given for the inclusion of the template in the category sex being incorrect, I have reverted the edit for the moment. (It is certainly better to have just the template in the category, under the appropriate heading, than to have all the other pages in there.) Why is it "incorrect?"
If the template shouldn't be in the category, then removing the category tag from the template entirely would seem to be the appropriate way to handle it. Zodon (talk) 11:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Templates don't go in mainspace categories. They only go in "template" categories. That's why including the template in the Template:Sex category is incorrect. I'll hold off on removing the Template:Sex tag entirely until I find documentation for this. --Sapphic (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2008_May_24#Templates_in_their_own_auto-categories and Help:Category#Non-main_namespaces although those still don't seem definitive enough for me, especially since Zodon seems to think using a 'tau' character is standard practice in these cases, meaning there must be a standard practice in these cases. I'll keep looking, but if somebody else knows more about this type of situation they should please chime in. --Sapphic (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those both seem to deal more with mechanics rather than policy. I took another look around but still haven't found anything that spells out policy one way or another on whether templates may/should/should not be included in categories with articles.
The documentation for Category:Wikipedia templates indicates that all templates should be categorized under that, but does not indicate prohibition of categorization elsewhere as well.
The Wikipedia:Categorization#Guidelines suggest that articles be included in the category with the same name as the article (#5). It also suggests that articles be categorized by the topic (i.e. sex), rather than by characteristics of the article (i.e. template) (#8). Both seem to me to suggest that template:sex may be appropriate in category:sex.
This enhancement suggestion suggests a way to clarify/separate articles by namespace in category display. As noted above, the sorting under tau seems to be a de-facto standard practice workaround to provide similar effect.
I posted an inquiry on Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Policy on different namespaces in one category, editors there are probably more familiar with the category system, policies and current practice, and may be able to help. Zodon (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

I was looking for a general sex overview template, but all I found was this. Its first link is Feminist Sex Wars (all caps), and it just gets worse from there. So I thought I'd look through the history of the template and how it got developed. It was apparently started by a banned abusive sockpuppet, and its first incarnation was all mostly tacky. Its current state again is one without topical or logical order, which can be corrected somewhat, but such efforts will no doubt be hampered by the fact that it still appears to conform to the tacky list example of the original. Needs work -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 06:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re-added deleted aspects

[edit]

I am reverting a previous user's deletion of the articles I added to this template for the following reasons:

  • The most-appropriate possible category listed in this, the main Sexuality template (for lack of a better one, which I believe should be developed), "Relationships and Society", is the one under which I have put celibacy, involuntary celibacy and single person. I am going to fight to keep those there, because I firmly believe they should be there.
  • If sexual abstinence can be there, so can things like the ones I added, plus, I would even argue, asexuality also. If people working on this Template want to make a more appropriate (i.e. sexology-centered) template because they feel that these things don't belong in the Sex template, then I encourage them to do so. But there is apparently no such template and given the development of the Sex template and how closely associated with the Sex WikiProject it is, I am placing these things here the best I can until someone professional can take it upon themselves to make a more appropriate overall template.
  • Please also see this issue I raised here for my opinion on the template issue more generally.

If other people want to revert my mods again, they should have the decency to reply in-depth to this note I have left. Continued discussionless reversions of those mods will be periodically counter-reverted by me. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed celibacy, involuntary celibacy and single person again. Single person has nothing to do with sex (sure, single people may or may not have sex, but same goes for plumbers or obesity or ...), celibacy is more a philosophical/social view than a mechanical one and both it and involuntary celibacy are explicitly not sex.
The purpose of navigation templates is to link closely related articles that readers are likely to want to navigate between. wp:Navigation templates It seems unlikely that somebody interested in reading about celibacy is also going to be likely to want to read about aspects of the sex industry or the laundry list of sex acts. Navigation templates aren't the only option - Regular wikilinks, categorization, etc. provide more appropriate connection to/from celibacy, etc.
Agree that sexual abstinence is somewhat peripheral, but at least it is a subset of sexual acts. (Last time I looked Celibacy claimed to be absence of all sexual activity, which is probably not possible - but I digress.) Sexual abstinence also should provide an avenue to other articles about asexuality, celibacy, etc.
This template suffers from an over-broad focus, so it tends to attract all sorts of fluff. Therefore it needs fairly careful pruning to keep it from getting too large to be of any use. (Something that had a smaller focus might allow more leaway on peripheral items, but if added everything directly to do with human sex this template would be unusable, much less adding peripheral items - like antonyms, etc.). Zodon (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zodon, thank you for re-adding involuntary celibacy. I continue to make the overall case that celibacy, involuntary celibacy and single person belong in the Relationships category as serious relevant articles, but for now I will accept involuntary celibacy alone as staying in there, and I will wait for further discussion to accumulate before pursuing a counter-revert of any kind. Kikodawgzzz (talk)
I didn't re-add it - that was another user.
If you think they belong there, make a case for it. (e.g. give reasons, etc.)
The main concept for that group of articles, Sexual Abstinence, is here already - no need to have all the detailed bits here (this template being an overview, not all the the detailed bits). Just as there is no reason to have all the birth control methods here (just having Birth control and Safe sex covers it - for further details - those articles and related templates get you there). Zodon (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a case already, as you see above, but on the other hand I've also now made a navbox Template:Human sexuality, which has different groupings and a different focus, as you sort-of suggested I do in some or another earlier thread here; I never nor could I ever claim this new navbox to be any 'good', but it definitely fits in sexological topics a lot easier and is specifically NOT focused on sex ACTS and related phenomena (speaking generally, why even have that kind of focus as the basis for the main Sexuality template to begin with??). As soon as the code's fixed (by someone more qualified) on my new navbox there, it should be good to go and in turn, we won't even have a need to have involuntary celibacy etc even under the "Sex" navbox to begin with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kikodawgzzz (talk • contribs)
The only reason so far presented is that "you firmly believe they should be there." That doesn't explain why, it doesn't respond to the issues raised. However, if they fit better on another template - great.
Is this the main sexuality template? This one says (by it's name) that it is about sex. Zodon (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To any and all who have problems with these articles being in the Sex navbox-- you can now relax. These subjects have now been included in a separate "Human Sexuality and Sexology" template that is more appropriate. Happy now? ;) Kikodawgzzz (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move specific sex acts to template sex positions

[edit]

The list of sex acts has gotten too large. There are a few options:

  1. The whole laundry list should be moved to {{sex positions}}. Sex acts used to be a section of that template[1], after they were removed there they seem to have accumulated here. But it doesn't make much sense to make this template so huge, especially when the various acts seem more closely related to the material on that template about positions and instruction manuals. It might be reasonable to leave just the general human sexual activities and sex manual items here.
  2. Could create a separate template for sex acts (although differentiating from sex positions might be problem), or
  3. Make the sex acts section here collapsible (so at least the template wouldn't be quite so overwhelming).

I think moving it to sex positions would be best. Are there other suggestions, or what do others favor? Zodon (talk) 06:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting ribaldry for the sex industry section

[edit]

This article seems very relevant in its relation to sexual media as an alternative to classy erotica or less classy porn. It's the area of humour or mocking which still deals with it. I've added this template to the page and I would like to include the page in the template between Prostitution and Sex Museum. Any objections? DB (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is appropriate here. The big problem with this template is that it could get so large. Perhaps there is an opening for a more specific template covering sex in entertainment/media? (Even that is probably a big can of worms.) I just happened upon an article about sex in star trek even. (There are more general ones about sexuality in fictional worlds or some such too.)
If added ribaldry here, then would probably need to add American burlesque, etc. Zodon (talk) 09:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why China, Japan, and South Korea?

[edit]

That seems quite odd. Jun-Dai (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's because they all have a "Sexuality in X" page  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reproduction?

[edit]

Why no mention? What about changing Pregnancy to Pregnancy/Reproduction? 92.20.169.188 (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are other templates that cover reproduction, such as {{reproductive health}} and {{pregnancy}} Zodon (talk) 06:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survival sex

[edit]

Please add Survival sex in the "Sex industry" section. Thank you. 85.230.127.113 (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Survival sex comes under prostitution, which is already in the template. Thanks andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 23:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently no mention of survival sex in the Prostitution article. Granted they are similar, but the extent to which the two are voluntary are vastly different, are they not? Weltoners (talk) 05:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As there are two articles, it's better in - I've added it. Maybe the articles need a merge? - that's another question!  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Argeed. In the mean time I think I'll add something about survival sex to Prostitution. Weltoners (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Survival sex should not be on this template - another variant/subdivision of prostitution. It is already mentioned on sex and the law template. If want a template to go into greater detail on some area, should probably create area specific template (and remove coverage from this one). There are probably enough articles to make a template just about sex industry, or even specifically about prostitution. That would shrink this template (which is again getting over-large) and that template could provide more complete coverage of the area. Zodon (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most people engaging in survival sex do not see themselves as prostitutes. I am going to replace this because it is different enough to reasonably balance the categories. I suggest that the sexual practices category might need trimming, but I don't think this template is particularly large compared to, e.g., {{employment}}. Npmay (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it appears on the template, it should be a sub-item under prostitution (since it is a form of prostitution, see for instance the lead of the article on survival sex).
It is not clear to what extent somebody reading about erectile dysfunction or gender identity is really going to need a quick way to get to survival sex.
The variants of prostitution are already covered by {{sex and the law}}, no clear reason to duplicate that coverage here.
I don't think need either forced prostitution or survival sex on the template (this is of necessity an overview and should not cover all the variants). But why include survival sex rather than forced prostitution?
As far as template size - the topic is so broad that this template could and has grown tremendously. It tends to attract additions, especially of articles on particular variants of major topics covered. It is only through periodic trimming that it has been kept down to a manageable size. (Thanks Npmay for trimming sexual activities).
As I noted above, if coverage of prostitution in sex and the law is not adequate for navigation of the prostitution articles, we should create a template just about prostitution. Then could include all the variants, subdivisions, etc. Zodon (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual fantasy

[edit]

I think perhaps Sexual fantasy would be appropriate to add to the template, under sexual activities. That would encompass/lead to interested readers to coverage of the other major sex organ - the brain. Zodon (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with this. I am going to add it and remove some of the more esoteric and porn-movies-only categories. Npmay (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refactor template based on active usage?

[edit]

Ran a quick list of Wikipedia:Top 5000 pages as of 2/21/2013 for another project. Noted quite a few sex topics are of very strong interest to users of WikiPedia. Following is the list in descending order based on hits counts during 7 days. (Yes those are just 7 day counts!) I may have missed some, or tagged pages you don't agree with, which is fine. I’m just introducing the information here.

If the object of the template is to help users navigate to where they want to go there is great information embedded in just the hit counts.

In any discussion of sexual fetishes one has to remember a few points:

  • Fetishes are described as polymorphous perverse, i.e. exceedingly diverse. (i.e. to each her own)
  • Those who are personally attracted to a particular fetish find it extremely (perhaps compulsively) interesting!
    • However, many to most people will be uninterested or unmotivated by that particular fetish, particularly if its quite unique.
  • The minority in each fetish will likely overestimate the public's overall interest in their favorite fetish. Because of thier particularly keen interest they may desire to promot it.
  • With enough people as a sample you can easily sort various sex topics by level of general interest
  • Some fetishes are quite offensive to a significant number of people and “drive them away”.

A navigation tool should be measured by "do most people quickly find what they are looking for"? Granted hit counts are not perfect, and can be biased towards heavy vs. casual users. However with large sample, it’s a great start.

I'd also argue that the existing template categories seems a tad "restrictive" on the topic of total topic of sex. Gender differences, sexy people / sex icons, physical aspects, social/political/economic aspects, emotional aspects, religion and mythology, history/culture, psychological theories might all be represented according to usage. Sex is after all, a large topic.

What would be cool is a dynamically updated template, of fixed and limited display size, hat automatically resorted topics according to hit count. This might be cool for disambiguation pages also... However perhaps that's a bit far forward…

71.176.111.175 (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Too broad

[edit]

you cant possibly have a single navbox which works for an outline of human sexuality. I really dont like this bdeing used. I would rather see more targeted ones.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You think Template:Human sexuality is too limited, and you think Template:Sex is too broad. Both templates, especially Template:Sex, are fine to me; Template:Sex has worked fine for years and, as far as I can see, does not need to be split into more than one template. Flyer22 (talk) 04:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to either rename this template or to do anything with the template at the target location. Jenks24 (talk) 09:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Sex → Template:Human sexuality – The template should be renamed as human sexuality because the template is only about sexualities of human not about all the devisions of sex. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Johnuniq, NeilN, Zad68, Grayfell, Cullen328 and Nigelj and for their input. Sharif uddin (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I made Sharif uddin's proposal into an official move request, per my statement below. This is why the proposal has my signature stuck to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like I just noted to you, start a WP:Requested moves discussion for your argument. That will bring in more opinions on this. As for my opinion? You have a valid point about the title. Even though the term sex commonly refers to sexual activity, sex also refers to the biological matters noted in the Sex article. If this template is moved to Template:Human sexuality, then the non-redundant material that is in the current Template:Human sexuality should be merged with it. We don't need you creating Template:Human sexuality and sexology.
As for the pings here, here and here, WP:Pings only work with a new signature. But I've gone ahead pinged Johnuniq, NeilN, Zad68, Grayfell, Cullen328 and Nigelj for you in this post. I take it that you've followed my lead on pinging them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, did not get the first ping. The title of a template is just for editors, so I don't have a strong preference beyond how easy it is to remember. As for merging the two, I could go either way. Redundancy is bad for navboxes, so a merger makes sense, but the template is already pretty long. If there was some other way to divide them, it might at least be worth considering. If not, a merge is fine, too. Grayfell (talk) 04:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will wait to see how the conversation develops before expressing an opinion myself. That's because I do not yet have a clear opinion and want to hear from the large contingent of editors who are smarter than I am, especially when it come to templates. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to replace Template:Sex with Template:Sex (biology) by replacing Template:Human sexuality with template Template:Sex. For that, I also want all of your opinions. So, please give your comments here also about that. Sharif uddin (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be mentioned that the move option of Template:Sex has been restricted (see here) that none but admins only can move this page. Sharif uddin (talk) 06:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please edit your sandbox to replace its contents with a copy/paste of the new wikitext for each navbox or sidebar that is proposed to change. Include a link to the current navbox/sidebar. You might briefly mention why the changes are desirable. Then people have something to discuss. The discussion earlier here (permalink) seemed to involve more than the description above. Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a reason to change the name. Templates, while they may occasionally be editor facing, are rarely seen as reader facing. That just means we're making work for ourselves when there are better things to be doing. --Izno (talk) 11:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Johnuniq, according to your suggestion, I have edited in my sandbox. Please check here, User:Sharif uddin/sandbox. Sharif uddin (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check here: 

Sharif uddin (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Reborn, Johnuniq, NeilN, Zad68, Grayfell, Cullen328 and Nigelj, please check above. Sharif uddin (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding inappropriate wall of pings
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Pinging the members of related wikiproject:

Active members

[edit]

Former members

[edit]

The list below contain all former task force members, who decided to no longer participate in Sex work task force, or became inactive with no edits posted to Wikipedia sex work articles in the past 12 months (as of 26 October 2023). If you at some point of time were registered as a former member, but now want to return as an active project member, please feel free to re-add yourself to the Active members list.

I don't think WP:Pinging works like that. Hmm. Does it, Johnuniq? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hope not, although the docs are ambivalent! One reason it would fail is that no more than 50 users can be pinged in one edit (if there are 51 ping attempts, none are sent). It should be obvious why such restrictions are desirable, just as it is clear that transcluding a list of users with their off-topic comments is highly undesirable—that should be removed. I tried to raise the enthusiasm to engage with this discussion but found it rather confusing. What is the point of the proposal? What would be the effect on a typical article? Johnuniq (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that more than 50 pinging fails. Then I want to remove the pings. I want nothing but the non-redundancy in the template's naming. Sharif uddin (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I myself will do the necessery edits if the template is moved. Sharif uddin (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Sex/Archive_1&oldid=1214745995"