| Revision as of 22:31, 11 December 2016 editTheAromanticInitiative (talk | contribs)14 edits →Organization of the Template: new section← Previous edit |
Revision as of 01:39, 2 May 2017 edit undoFlyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs)365,630 edits Archiving. I think I somehow missed the post by the TheAromanticInitiative account, which is currently blocked, but we've already been over the bisexuality/pansexuality matter times before, including at the Bisexuality talk page.Next edit → |
| Line 10: |
Line 10: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
__TOC__ |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
== Someone (another editor) should add Pansexual/Omnisexual to the Sexual orientation template and also. . . == |
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 12:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:] is already listed, under "Non-binary categories". It looks like it was added on 30 September 2012 . ] (]) 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 ] 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 ] and ], where this matter has been discussed extensively and that ] is to not list it on the template as a sexual orientation. At this point in time, it is ] 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 ]; a ] is This bisexuality vs. pansexuality argument is one of the biggest consistent issues I have dealt with at Misplaced Pages. As for why ] is listed as a sexual orientation, despite there being debate among scholars as to whether or not it is a sexual orientation, see ] and ] (my view of what a ] 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. ] (]) 05:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Recent changes to the template == |
|
|
|
|
|
Take note that I don't necessarily agree with any changes that ] makes to the template, and I have 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 ] with him and possibly cross the ] line. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 10:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:], with , I was about to ask: Am I supposed to believe there is a language barrier between us? Because judging from your user page and , 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 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 ]. ] (]) 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 ]. If editing one, please edit the other to ensure consistency." ] (]) 10:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Recent edits changed this wikitext: |
|
|
<pre> |
|
|
*] |
|
|
;Non-human animals: |
|
|
] (]) |
|
|
</pre> |
|
|
to: |
|
|
<pre> |
|
|
*] |
|
|
|heading4=Non-human animals |
|
|
|content4= |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] (]) |
|
|
</pre> |
|
|
|
|
|
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 ] is more on-topic than ] (which is the target of the ] redirect). Also, the former article includes this navbox, while the latter does not. ] (]) 10:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2014 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Template:Sexual orientation|answered=yes}} |
|
|
<!-- Begin request --> |
|
|
{{Sidebar |
|
|
|name = Sexual orientation |
|
|
|title = ] |
|
|
|headingstyle = background-color: #E6E6FA |
|
|
|contentclass = hlist |
|
|
|image = ] |
|
|
|heading1=Sexual orientations |
|
|
|content1= |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*]<!-- NOTE: As pansexuality is not recognized as a sexual orientation by authoritative sources (such as the American Psychological Association) because it is not viewed as distinct from bisexuality by these sources, WP:Consensus is against adding it under the Sexual orientations heading. If you feel that this should be discussed further, then start a new discussion about it on the template's talk page, or partake in a current discussion that may be going on about it there, without listing pansexuality under this heading. Pansexuality is listed lower, under the Non-binary categories heading. The same applies to polysexuality. --> |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
|heading2=Non-binary categories |
|
|
|content2= |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
|heading3=Research |
|
|
|content3= |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
|heading4=Non-human animals |
|
|
|content4= |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] (]) |
|
|
|belowclass = hlist |
|
|
|belowstyle = background-color: #E6E6FA |
|
|
|below= |
|
|
*{{Icon|category}} ] |
|
|
}} |
|
|
<!-- End request --> |
|
|
] (]) 05:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> the article you have requested to be added is tagged for deletion. ] <small>]</small> 06:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Removed gender categories from the "Non-binary categories" section == |
|
|
|
|
|
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 . With , I added the ] category to that section. ] (]) 04:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
] and ] (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. ] (]) 04:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2015 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Template:Sexual orientation|answered=yes}} |
|
|
<!-- Begin request --> |
|
|
There is a close curly brace"}" instead of a pipe "|" here:* ] so the text does not appear as a link. |
|
|
<!-- End request --> |
|
|
] (]) 00:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I reverted , as it should not be there anyway. ] 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 ] article and has common sense should see why it's entirely unnecessary to include that. ] (]) 00:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Organization of the Template == |
|
|
|
|
|
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.] (]) 22:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
.svg){kind=small}