Template talk:Sexual orientation/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 1 |

Archive 2

| Archive 3 →

Why does sexual practice define you as a human being?

I just don't understand why how you get off is an acceptable definition of who you are as a human being. Really, does it matter?--Mijeff (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Gayelle

I am going to add gayelleNewAtThis (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Do not add that. I saw the article on your page, and can tell you right now that it's not notable. For one, you cite urban dictionary. Bad source right there. Also, you cite a Neology.(see WP:NEO.)

Those weird footnotes are back

The footnotes really should be on the template at all. If they don't belong in any one article then maybe they aren't worth keeping. Banjeboi 01:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The footnotes have been set to "noinclude" and will not appear on the pages the template is placed. the only way one can see the references is if they click the footnote link at the bottom and will be redirected to the template page. We have solved the issue with the references "bleeding over" onto pages the template is placed on. The references do no affect pages and are not harming anyone. And like i ahve said 10.7 trillion times, references can be on templates, they are in the template used on the United States.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually every instance of the template shows a weird "template footnotes" section which seems peculiar and unhelpful. If something needs explaining or referencing on a template we should instead fix it, simplify it, clear it off. Maybe another template that includes terms not appropriate for this one may make more sense. Maybe they don't need to be on a template. Banjeboi 20:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I keep telling Cooljuno that points which lack consensus and sourcing shouldn't be on templates at all, at least not until they have achieved consensus on article pages, but he is insistent on imposing this perspective on the template (I assumed because that gets his message across on the most pages with the least effort that way). don't know what to do about his attitude, except to keep reverting his OR until he takes the issue up properly on an article page. --Ludwigs2 21:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well let's assume good faith but agree that templates are not appropriate venues for content disputes in general and, in fact, should have consensus for controversial items as they effect more than one article at a time. Banjeboi 21:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

What's the point of the references? They mostly seem based on a wiktionary reference, but wiktionary isn't reliable.. so why are we even tagging a template with this?--Crossmr (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sexuality vs sexual

The sexual orientations on this list end in sexuality rather than sexual. Is that right? For example, I would say a gay person had a homosexual orientation, not a homosexuality orientation. If I understand right, sexuality includes more than just a sexual orientation, but also sexual behavior. This causes problems when writing the different articles. For example, on the homosexuality page, the intro reads "Homosexuality refers to sexual behavior with or attraction to people of the same sex, or to a sexual orientation." Wouldn't it be clearer just to have pages and links to sexual orientations, not sexualities? Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Therefore, I purpose to list the various sexual orientations as heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual instead of a heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality orientation. If no one objects, I'll go ahead and make those changes. Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No objection here, either one works for me. --User0529 (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)