Template talk:Sexual orientation

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.

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 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

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 aspect you changed 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 try proposing 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)