This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

LGBTQ+ studies This template is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Sexology and sexuality This template is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality

Template:Multidel

Should Unlabeled sexual orientation sexual orientation be added to Orientations section of this template?--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 04:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This article is now currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unlabeled sexual orientation.

• Support, it is important to the discussions of sexual orientations.--cooljuno411 [sign my contact archive] 04:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose (weak). 'unlabled' is not to my knowledge an orientation recognized in the conventional literature on this subject.

I'm willing to change my opinion with if proper sources can be provided, but otherwise I think the template should restrict itself to the accepted usages of the term. --Ludwigs2 05:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

""Many cultures use identity labels to describe people who express these attractions. In the United States the most frequent labels are lesbians (women attracted to women), gay men (men attracted to men), and bisexual people (men or women attracted to both sexes). However, some people may use different labels or none at all."" - quote from the American Phycological Association--cooljuno411 07:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose until we find plenty of secondary sources (reliable sources) which indicate this is a necessary inclusion with sufficient weight to be presented alongside the other orientations which are already in the template. My google~fu first returned a few hundred search-engine results, but examining them more deeply revealed that there were only 44 actual results (the rest were redundantly similar to the first 44) ...and nearly all of the search-engine results were mirrors and echo-chambers of these very Wikipedia pages mentioning "unlabeled sexual orientation". This "unlabeled sexual orientation" category is only a micrometer away from Original Research, and only seems to exist as a technicality, rather than as an actual notable item of scholarly research— and doesn't even seem like a very interesting topic of gossip (to me). The template is already stuffed to the gills with all of the elaborations which have received notable academic mention, and until i actually find a textbook or a scholarly article published by a reputable researcher using the term "unlabeled sexual orientation" i am going to presume that the micrometer is quite insufficient. Maybe in the future there will be a valid reason for inclusion, but i can't find one by searching on the internet, and i will continue to find it extremely dubious unless some sexology experts present some sources. Thanks ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 05:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose with hellfire - Here we go again.. same editor, different article wanting to be included. Unlabeled sexual orientation should be merged with Pomosexual and shouldn't exist at all. As was noted in an above discussion, both Perceived sexual orientation and Undefined sexual orientation which now redirects to Unlabeled sexual orientation, were branched out of Pomosexual by the nom Cooljuno. This article, like the ones discussed above, is nothing but a POV fork. I'll also point out that the article, since unfortunately it does exist, should be in Category:Sexual orientation and that category is already linked in this template as List (category) of sexual orientations so no sense in creating redundancy. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 05:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This appears to be no more than an attempt to lend credibility to an article that's currently in AfD. Gigs (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Unlabeled Sexual Orienation was added to AFD AFTER i posted this discussion.... it appears someone is trying to kill it before it gets on the template.--cooljuno411 07:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but that article is just one more in a string of articles you've created with the sole purpose of changing the definition of sexual orientation. please... --Ludwigs2 14:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support inclusion, if survives AfD. Article is relevent and would add alternative viewpoints / diversity to the sexual orientation series of articles. Could use more academic sources, but it still is relevent to the template's topic, and does have some sourcing (though could use more). Article creator's previous articles should not be used to pre-judge this one. This one actually has a little larger scope than the previous articles. Wikignome0529 (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unlabelled is not an orientation, it is a lack of use of the common terms for orientation. It is no more valid than adding "None of your business" as an orientation.YobMod 13:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOlz... you clearly don't understand.... it's not "none of your business what my orientation is", it is "i don't label myself with an orientation because you look silly and stupid when you do. Try reading the article?????"--cooljuno411 19:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to split this discussion across two separate pages, but i've been trying to find WP:V and WP:RS to support some kind of potential inclusion; and now i've mentioned the fruitless results in a comment on the AFD discussion page for Unlabeled sexual orientation. If we can't even contrive a legitimate article about the topic of unlabeled sexual orientation then i don't see how we can include it in our templates. Thank you ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 11:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, i have done some cleanup[1] on another related template[2] where Cooljuno411 was trying to circumvent the edit-war and deletion consensus. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 02:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i cannot even begin to discuss and critique this article/ submission. it is subjective at best and uninformed at worst. better than i are challenging the content. i support them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angibaby (talk • contribs) 01:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Maybe we should place a note at the top of the talk page saying that controversial subject that requires a moderate and restrictive set of inclusion criteria, so that people will get the idea? I have been fending off the inclusion of odd, sundry, and always dubious categories on this template since I started editing wikipedia. 'sexual orientation' is not a catch-all concept for any sexual behavior that anyone decides they would like to reify and legitimize. --Ludwigs2 19:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editsemiprotected}} Showing an image of a pedophile penetrating a youth, even if shown on an artifact, is unacceptable within the framework of an encyclopedia. Jkb08 (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to user talk page for discussion; not sure which article they refer to.  Chzz  ►  22:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has added Pomosexual and Monosexual to the template without discussing this on the talk page. As it says, "This template is included on a number of pages. Before making any content changes, please discuss them on the talk page first." This not having been done, I've deleted them, and invited the editor and anyone else to make the case for their addition here. Herostratus (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

just as a thought, a checkuser might be in order... --Ludwigs2 04:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must apologize I added pomosexual and monosexual. I would like to apologize. I do however think that at least monosexual should be added however. Any other thoughts. Again apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowofpeace (talk • contribs) 04:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The (oft-challenged) consensus on this page is that we should restrict the entries to the best known and most broadly accepted orientations. The problem is that there is an endless stream of idiosyncratic classifications that people would like to see established as 'orientations' as a matter of legitimacy. it might be feasible to include those on articles relating to sexual orientation (where proper discussion and the use of scholarly sources is possible), but they can't really be included on a navigation template because there is no room for fine-tuning or balancing on a template. Pomosexual has been excluded because it's a neologism that refers to something which isn't itself an orientation, but rather an avoidance of being labeled (technically speaking, I am a pomosexual because I'm a standard hetero male who dislikes being referred to as hetero); Monosexual is a little-known neologism that merely points to non-bisexuals (and is likely a term-of-derision used by bisexuals to refer to all those stuffy gays and straights). Neither term is really sufficiently in the common parlance to include on the template.

I suppose it's worth opening a discussion on whether we should add a 'neologisms' section to the template to include terms like this, but it goes against standard wikipedia usage (and possibly against policy). We don't, for instance, want to give fetishists such as pedophiles and zoophiles an opening to establish themselves on wikipedia as equivalent in social and scholarly acceptance to gays and straights (fetishes are not the same as orientations; the first are considered diagnosable illnesses whereas the latter are more or less normal differences in behavior). We need to let conventional and scholarly understandings lead the way on this. --Ludwigs2 05:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would adding monosexuality lead the way for a neologism that allowed pedophiles and fetishists. First of all even if pedophilia could be expressed in an orientation it couldn't be a sexual orientation as sexual orientation is by definition based on the sex of the people involved not the age. Also intersexs and genderqueers who were attracted to one gender would be called monosexuals because they couldn't be heterosexuals because which gender is opposite of them? They also couldn't be considered homosexual because that would mean that they were attracted to those of the same gender which would be other intersex and genderqueer individuals. They also couldn't be considered bisexuals because they might not be attracted to both the main genders. You see the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowofpeace (talk • contribs) 04:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a causal statement. we need to draw the line somewhere, and the appropriate place (for wikipedia) to draw the line is with commonly accepted terminology used in reliable sources. The article on monosexuality itself says the term is little used and disputed, right? so there you go. --Ludwigs2 17:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue however that polysexuality was used less frequently than monosexuality. Polysexual dosn't appear in one book on sexual orientation that I can think of. Pansexuality rarely does as well. Yet no one argues that they should be included. Wouldn't it be fair to include monosexuality as it refers to people not only who are straight and gay but can refer as I said above to a person who is intersex and therefore neither heterosexual nor homosexual but just attracted to a single different gender. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowofpeace (talk • contribs) 05:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then we may want to consider removing polysexual and pansexual. II'll look into it. --Ludwigs2 12:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My initial reaction is that I would tend to support this. From the article lead of Pasexuality: "Some pansexuals suggest that... gender and sex are insignificant or irrelevant in determining whether they will be sexually attracted to others. For others, an individual's sex, gender expression, or gender identity can be a key factor of attraction..."; sounds pretty overly all-inclusive to me. And Polysexuality can be pretty much subsumed under Bisexuality. Herostratus (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The polysexuality article does not claim that polysexuality is a sexual orientation. So, I propose to remove it from this template. It's not in the companion (similar) template and both should be alike. Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 05:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]