Template talk:Sexual orientation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Someone (another editor) should add Pansexual/Omnisexual to the Sexual orientation template and also. . .[edit]

Given the meaning of 'Pansexual', probably add, and find citation for, orientation not only to 'persons' as the article now states in its paragraph 1 but 'persons or things' as personhood is likely not a distinction made by some or most pansexuals.

After all, 'Asexual' is already included in this template.

You might also have to distinguish between generally Pansexual, meaning some people and/or things of any kind MIGHT attract a Pansexual, just as only some women are attractive to homosexual/lesbian women, not all, and Omnisexual which is really just the same word using Latin instead of Greek but is more likely to imply that EVERYTHING attracts an Omnisexual, probably still in varying degree, but possibly more than to a Pansexual in the series homo-, hetero-, a-.

So there's a possibility that the Pansexuality article might have a subsection making this distinction, or that Omnisexual needs to be broken out as a separate entry, and if so, would qualify for separate inclusion in this template, too.

I defer in both these recommended edits to those who are already editing this template and topic, and leave you colleagues to consider and implement these suggestions.

Pandelver (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Pansexuality is already listed, under "Non-binary categories". It looks like it was added on 30 September 2012 here. Trankuility (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, pansexuality is already on the template. The reason that it is not listed on the template as a sexual orientation is because the vast majority of scholars do not see it as a sexual orientation, but rather, if they mention it at all, as a sexual identity that indicates bisexuality. No authoritative sources on sexual orientation label pansexuality as a sexual orientation, and the vast majority of those sources don't even mention it. See Template talk:Sexual orientation/Archive 7#Shouldn't the other two sexualities be added back? and Template talk:Sexual orientation/Archive 8#Pansexuality and polysexuality, where this matter has been discussed extensively and that WP:Consensus is to not list it on the template as a sexual orientation. At this point in time, it is WP:Fringe to call pansexuality a sexual orientation. Also see the debate about pansexuality vs. bisexuality in the Pansexuality article, which clarifies things even further; some people see pansexuality as distinct from bisexuality; some people do not see it as distinct from bisexuality. This is also clear by the debates at Talk:Pansexuality; a WP:Permalink is here. This bisexuality vs. pansexuality argument is one of the biggest consistent issues I have dealt with at Wikipedia. As for why asexuality is listed as a sexual orientation, despite there being debate among scholars as to whether or not it is a sexual orientation, see Template talk:Sexual orientation/Archive 7#Zoosexuality and Template talk:Sexual orientation/Archive 7#Is there evidence that Asexuality is a sexual orientation? (my view of what a WP:Primary source means was somewhat faulty back then, though). WP:Consensus has been to leave it listed as a sexual orientation. Unlike with pansexuality, scholars are in a significant debate about whether or not to call asexuality a sexual orientation. With pansexuality, again, they usually don't mention it, or they define it as an aspect of bisexuality...either by calling it bisexuality or by directly calling it an aspect of bisexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes to the template[edit]

Take note that I don't necessarily agree with any changes that Sharif uddin makes to the template, and I have already informed him that changes to the template should generally be discussed on the template talk page first. Unfortunately, like I indicated on Sharif uddin's talk page, it appears that Sharif uddin is one of those editors who does not interact with other editors (despite what he has stated on his user page), which also means that he is the type of editor who will revert and revert without explanation and drive other editors to engage in a WP:Edit war with him and possibly cross the WP:3RR line. Flyer22 (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22, i have read the message u gave me. I usually edit from my mobile so unfortunately i could not point out notification because of my small screen.So, I am very sorry for that. Now let me explain. sexual psycology doesn't mean only the homosexual psycology; and animal sexual behaviour is not only limited in homosexual act. For this reason, i did the recent edits. Sharif uddin (talk) 10:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Sharif uddin, with this, I was about to ask: Am I supposed to believe there is a language barrier between us? Because judging from your user page and this, you can surely communicate far better than stating "explain." It's obviously good that you've replied. With regard to Template:Sexual orientation, I already know those things. I've only taken issue with one change you've made to it so far, and I noted that on your talk page after reverting you. Additionally, I am asking you to slow down with your changes to the template and to propose changes regarding it here on the talk page first. This is because changes to Template:Sexual orientation can be controversial and should have WP:Consensus. Flyer22 (talk) 10:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
And let's not forget that the template also states, "Please note that gender material on this template should have similar content to the 'Non-binary' section of Template:Gender and sexual identities. If editing one, please edit the other to ensure consistency." Flyer22 (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits changed this wikitext:

*[[Homosexuality and psychology|Psychology]]
;Non-human animals:
[[Homosexual behavior in animals]] ([[List of animals displaying homosexual behavior|List]])


*[[Sexual psychology|Psychology]]
|heading4=Non-human animals
*[[Animal sexual behaviour]]
*[[Animal co-opted sexual behavior]]
*[[Homosexual behavior in animals]] ([[List of animals displaying homosexual behavior|List]])

The use of heading4 is good, although I'm not sure non-human animals should be included as I imagine this template is used mainly as a navigation box for human sexuality topics. Why is the Psychology link changed? My guess is that Homosexuality and psychology is more on-topic than Sexology (which is the target of the Sexual psychology redirect). Also, the former article includes this navbox, while the latter does not. Johnuniq (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2014[edit]

Ultramaliciousguy (talk) 05:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: the article you have requested to be added is tagged for deletion. Stickee (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Removed gender categories from the "Non-binary categories" section[edit]

Since this is the sexual orientation template, and enough people confuse sexual orientation matters with gender matters as it is, I removed the gender categories from the "Non-binary categories" section of the template with this edit. With this edit, I added the non-heterosexual category to that section. Flyer22 (talk) 04:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Androphilia and gynephilia and queer (more so "queer") can be considered gender categories as well, but I left those on for the fact that they are generally about sexual orientation and sexual identity. Flyer22 (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2015[edit]

There is a close curly brace"}" instead of a pipe "|" here:* [[Monosexuality}Monosexual]] so the text does not appear as a link. (talk) 00:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the addition, as it should not be there anyway. WP:Reliable sources do not commonly include monosexuality as one of the sexual orientations, especially since it covers the heterosexual and homosexual sexual orientations. Anyone who reads the Monosexuality article and has common sense should see why it's entirely unnecessary to include that. Flyer22 (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Organization of the Template[edit]

Okay, so several issues here, bear with me. I'll keep my points as brief as possible.

The way this template is categorized (in the first two) seems to be a little out of whack. We have a category for "sexual orientations" and then for "non-binary categories". In LGBT+ communities, where this template is commonly used for the wiki pages, non-binary is also a gender, so I would suggest renaming that category in order to avoid confusion.

Secondly, I would like to reopen the issue of moving pansexuality and polysexuality up to the "sexual orientations" category, for the following reasons. Firstly, that with the acknowledgement of a third sex or a third gender, or even variations beyond that, it becomes evident that pansexuality and polysexuality are not the same thing as bisexuality. Secondly, the communities do sometimes come in conflict and do have varying histories, and with the above point would be recognized as sexualities in their own right.

Also, and this is the least important of my suggestions so feel free to dismiss this, I would honestly resort everything completely, if I'm being completely honest. It would seem to make sense to group heterosexual and homosexual together under Binary orientations, Bisexual, Pansexual, and Polysexual together under Multi-Spectrum orientations, and then asexuality and gray-asexuality under Asexual-Spectrum Orienations, and then the rest, of course, under an "other identities" category. Again, this is more preference than it is an important, urgent edit, so feel free to dismiss this as unfeasible.

I would love to hear other editor's feedback on these ideas, especially the first two which I consider very important.Ariadne (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)