Resolvedapproved --cooljuno411 02:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add a see also section?--cooljuno411 06:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• agree, i think it is needed--cooljuno411 06:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolvedapproved --cooljuno411 02:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we add a see also section, should we add Perceived sexual orientation to the see also section?--cooljuno411 06:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• agree, sounds like it would make a great fit. The article needs some exposure to be expanded.--cooljuno411 06:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's formally and clearly discuss if this article presently is a good fit for the template. If it's decided to include we can then sort out where might make the most sense. Please consider viewing the archives for similar previous discussions on including or disincluding articles. -- Banjeboi 14:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Opposed for now. Perceived sexual orientation sounds good but it needs a lot of work before its inclusion on the template. This has been a similar concern with other articles that was the source of a long process to get the current template version. I guess the closest concern from the guidelines is If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them. Perceived sexual orientation was created twenty days ago, and renamed since and is very much in need of notability and sourcing. It's got some fairly significant issues that, IMHO, preclude its inclusion at this time. The last articles added, Environment and sexual orientation and Non-heterosexual were both greatly improved with sourcing and vetted a that they were reliably sourced. Templates could be used to drive traffic to articles in dire need but in this template I would certainly advise against it. Maybe after a dozen or so reliable sources were added and the article vetted a bit? I think it still has a notability tag, that's not the best sign. Once I understood, or at least I think I understand what Cooljuno411 expressed on the article's talkpage about the nature of the article I agree there is potential but it may be too soon in this case. -- Banjeboi 14:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article sub-section is not formatted right.... it should be formated with an AGREE vote meaning a change to the article.... and an OPPOSE vote to keep the status quo. --cooljuno411 20:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting should not be a barrier to discussion. Aleta ^Sing 21:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall me saying that....--cooljuno411 21:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note:the following two votes were added from another thread but seen as accurate

• Support Perceived sexual orientation is very relevant to sexual orientation template. Phoenix of9 (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support perceived sexual orientation.... very relevant article, i don't see any reason to remove.--cooljuno411 20:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, This is rediculous, precieved sexual orientation should go into this template.--Ingopingo (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

If it smells like a sock... - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 07:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Just for clarity's sake how does Undefined sexual orientation fit into all this? That article is also problematic but perhaps a merge could address that it's onlt a sentence or two. -- Banjeboi 22:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what your are trying to ask or imply. And i also do not know what you mean when you talk about merging Undefined sexual orientation, you have not even stated what want to merge it with... maybe you should discuss the merger on that particular talk page. And i also reverted you edit, please don't preach consensus then turn around and remove things from the article without consensus. Approval was reached to add perceived sexual orientation to the template. The fact that i was the only one to voice an opinion in that FIVE (5) day waiting period doesn't give you the right to revert.... if you don't make it to election day, don't complain about the results.... my vote was the only one in the "ballot box", so you are going to have to come to terms that it is on the template until this current discussion is over. I am happy that you have gone through proper procedure, and started this current discussion. But until this current talk is over, i assume by Monday or Tuesday, you can not remove things without consensus.--cooljuno411 01:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both Perceived sexual orientation and Undefined sexual orientation were branched out of Pomosexual by you. They both are articles in dire need of improving, they both have serious notability and referencing issues. They are both very new articles by you and you are the primary author. This doesn't mean they couldn't be improved but at this time they are both good candidtaes for merging. Possibly together but it's unclear to me where you think this is going in the frontier of sexual orientation identification. There is no consensus for inclusion of any of these articles on the template and templates aren't generally used to draw attention to articles in this way. They tie together a series of articles that are logical and supportive of each other. None of these are there yet. The burden isn't on those removing content - like it or not reasonable content is often removed for discussion - the burden rests on those inserting or re-inserting content. It can stay out for now. -- Banjeboi 01:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undefined sexual orientation was a split from Pomosexual, Perceived sexual orientation was not, i started that article from scratch. Don't see the logic of merging them.... apples and carrots, come from the earth, put are entirely different... I spilt pomosexual and undefined sexual orientaiton, though similar concepts, still different.... like french fries and chips.... If you feel these article are in need of improvement, feel free to expand.... but i don't see any issue with them being stubs..... it's not required for an article to be a mile long... some times a simple, straight forward, answer is all that is need.--cooljuno411 01:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently 7 sentences long with cite tags on the three lede sentences. It's not my job to improve that article but I did correct one of the sourced statements to match what the source stated. Apologies if these are unrelated subjects and I missed that, Undefined sexual orientation should likely be either 1. deleted, 2. merged somewhere appropriate or 3. Improved greatly so there is no question it belongs. Perceived sexual orientation is in a similar arena that is is unclear what the article is actually about and sourcing doesn't clarify that. Being a stub isn't the problem but being so short and unclear at the same time are. You know what you mean but myself and others do not, it follows then that our readers likely will fail to understand the significance as well. These are reasons to improve the writing and sourcing. These same reasons are why I feel its inclusion on this template is premature at best. If it were well written and well-sourced then our discussion would center on has it reached an acceptable level of helpfulness to our readers' understanding of sexual orientation to include on this template and if so, where. -- Banjeboi 02:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, though i disagree with you opinion of a merger, what would you propose these articles be merged in to. I personally have not read an article that would accommodate these ideas. And perceived sexual orientation may be a bit hard to understand, i guess for some, but i do not find any difficulties or issues with undefined sexual orientation, it is quite straight forward. Like is said, there is not issue with a straight to the point, stub, article. And i would like to know why you would want to delete undefined sexual orientation, it is not a concept solely known to me. Watch The Real World?, one of the current cast members even says that she prefers not to label her sexual orientation... it is even stated in her biography, which can be read here The Real World: Brooklyn#Cast, her name is Sarah. You can even watch the after show where she says it.--cooljuno411 02:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undefined sexual orientation should likely be merged - both sentences - to sexual orientation, possibly to this section. If the content there grows it may then make sense to create an article. Likewise perceived sexual orientation should be branched out from there as sexual orientation is the parent article. I'm not saying merge the perceived article but look at the main and see where that content would fit. It's a valid concept but it's just not very clear presently and needs work. -- Banjeboi 03:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose Obvious POV fork from an agenda driven editor. I'd suggest any and all who come to weigh in on this issue, have a look at cooljuno411's edit history, including his blocks for the POV pushing and edit warring in regards to this matter and other related matters. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 07:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That, at least in my opinion, has no credibility to support removing an edit from an article which clearly has to do with this template..... 2/3 of the article's name being "sexual orientation" and all.--cooljuno411 09:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing we aren't discussing removing an edit from an article here but instead are discussing whether or not to include an article in this template. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 19:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support inclusion in template (or merge article itself into parent) - As long as article exists, I don't see why it shouldn't be included - as it is specifc to "sexual orientation" (as long as this doesn't creep into adding all kinds of -phobia's of specific orientations also). If there is an issue over whether the article is a POV fork (remember WP:AGF, guys) or shouldn't be a stand-alone article, then maybe the article itself should be proposed for merging into Sexual orientation. (my 2 cents) Outsider80 (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is we aren't having an AfD discussion here - this is about including on the template which shouldn't be a repository for articles that are in this bad of shape. I personally don't like to delete articles but perhaps it should be sent to merge or delete instead. In any case, no, too problematic to represent a real benefit to understanding sexual orientation even if it is now named 2/3's the way there. articles called Misunderstood sexual orientation or Confusing sexual orientation also doesn't work here. We are trying to offer, on this template, a series of articles that provide reasonably well sourced and written content. This is not that. -- Banjeboi 20:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not proposing a merge, just saying that if various commenters' rationale is that article itself is a POV fork or should not exist, then they should AFD/propose-merge of it. (which would make this whole discussion moot). This is the first I have heard of article quality being a factor in inclusion in templates. Personally I am skeptical of this article's survivability/notability on its own, but that is besides the point for this discussion (and you are more familiar w/ article rescue potential than me). anyhow. Outsider80 (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This template in particular has had some heavy edit-warring so I think a higher standard for inclusion wa called for Template talk:Sexual orientation/Archive 7 shows what the latest discussions looked like and article quality has remained a concern. Article quality was also confirmed at ANI regarding this article as being a valid concern. I have sent to merge so hopefully this can be easily resolved in that regard. -- Banjeboi 20:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support inclusion in template. It appears to be entirely relevant. Aleta ^Sing 20:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relevancy is not the issue, article quality is the problem, I'm nominating for merge which might resolve this. -- Banjeboi 20:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well it appears it has been resolved... The majority want it to be added to the template. I will be reinstating to the template by Monday afternoon (my time). This talk has gone on for quite some time now, more than THREE (3) days.--cooljuno411 23:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And I will be removing it Monday afternoon (my time). A consensus hasn't been reached and until one is, it shall be left alone. 3 days isn't the law, it's a guideline. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 00:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose addition for now. It seems to be non-notable neologism. All because someone pairs the adjective with the noun occasionally does not make it a good subject for an article. I could find sources using "Rumoured sexual orientation" or "Immoral sexual orientation", but they do not need articles. Until that article proves the notability of the term, and has more content than could easily be summaried in one paragraph in sexual orientation, it is premature to add it to a widely visible template in which space is at a premium.Yobmod (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose for now. There is an ongoing discussion to merge this article with the general sexual orientation article. I think a merger makes sense. If that article grows too big at that point we can discuss breaking it up into smallter linked articles, and of course, at that time, any related articles should certainly go on the template. We need to distinguish between two separate issues: (1) should two articles be merged? and (2) should all discrete articles relating to sexual orientation be on the template? My own answer to both questions is "yes" but they should be answered individually. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose for now, and a long time yet to come. while I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment, the linked article is little more than a stub, and I see no academic, scientific, or other authoritative references on the page. and CJ: take it to wikisource, where you can opine to your heart's content. I can't believe you're still pushing this point. --Ludwigs2 01:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose for now also. No need to have a crap "article", that is being nice, added to a template. --Tom 13:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]