Talk:List of pansexual people

Dan Howell
I believe Dan Howell has said he's bisexual, and in his newest 'Roast Yourself' video, he said something about being vague or confusing about what his sexuality is... I may be wrong, but someone please look into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmolBean12 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Is this article really necessary?
There are a number of different sexual orientations that people use to describe their sexuality. Creating list's of people who conform to said sexuality seems counter intuitive if we must do this for every sexual orientation available when this kind of information can be linked/noted directly in an article. There is already so little information here, all listed with the nebulous claim that these people are notable that I would suggest we either find more people of note or delete this page. Andrdema (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I approved this tentatively at AfC a few months back. I don't think it's a great addition to the encyclopedia, but Wikipedia seems to have an obsession with listing people by their sexuality (see Category:Lists of LGBT-related people) and it seemed unfair to have denied this list's inclusion given these prescients. --LukeSurlt c 12:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be neutral on any AfD if that happened. --LukeSurlt c 13:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Does this page not clash with the Wikipedia is not a directory definition. I think there is no clear cut or pretty answer to this problem and that it needs to be dealt with at a higher level as people come up with new classifications for their sexuality every day and making Wikipedia pages for them all and the people that classify themselves as such seems like a good way to cause a lot more problems then having all these pages solves. Never mind the fact that we run into the problem of not being able to decide who is notable or not. Andrdema (talk) 03:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that's the case, I was surprised to see that no one has created a "List of heterosexual people" page yet... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.68.80.58 (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Help needed: phraseology of inclusion sentence
Currently, the inclusion sentence in the article states:

"This is a list of notable people who identify as pansexual and deceased people who have been identified as pansexual."

I have one problem with that, as an experienced editor: It allows for the inclusion of non-notable, non-living people. When I tried to edit it, I failed, because I found I was destroying some of the original intent of the sentence's second clause: "deceased people who have been identified as pansexual".

At first I thought this would be OK:

"This is a list of living and deceased notable people who identify as pansexual."

Not really acceptable, I thought, because the intent of the second clause is to allow for future additions of deceased people who are later identified by an acceptable source, and my phrasing kills that. (I note that many deceased people who are notable, are later speculated by historians to have a different sexual preference than was ever documented during their life, that's OK with me as long as we stick to reputable historians as sources.)

Then I thought this would work logically:

"This is a list of notable people who identify as pansexual and deceased notable people who have been identified as pansexual."

While that's OK logically, it sucks linguistically: This editor calls that being "wordy and verbose". (Too many "notables" too close together.)

So, anyone have a better idea? &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Scrap the bit about dead people completely. I can't imagine a situation where it would be valid to retroactively define someone from history as "pansexual" that did not explicitly define themselves as such. --LukeSurlt c 17:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Who cares? - The article
Why does a list of people who identify as having some sexual orientation belong in Wikipedia?

Why is it full of honestly completely irrelevant people, too?

If a page like this is approved by the Wikipedia editors, it just opens way for thousands of meaningless lists with no documental usefulness to show up. Does Wikipedia really want lists of people who support a certain football club, or who prefer the colour blue?

This is a waste of disk space and bandwidth and would be better of in the figurative internet trash. Tiago Diastalk 21:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to nominate the article for deletion at WP:AfD. --LukeSurlt c 10:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * These sorts of hypothetic arguments against LGBTQ pages are always wrongheaded, and frankly, weak. I would say the page is surely notable. And there wouldn't be "thousands of meaningless lists with no documental usefulness" as such lists wouldn't be notable, and would be taken down. This list, as it is limited to a specific subject (pansexual people), and further limited to people who have pages on here, deserves to be on this site, stay here, and is notable. Historyday01 (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Sources need to explicitly use the term "pansexual"
Considering that the distinction between pansexuality and bisexuality is debated (see Pansexuality), this list should only include persons where the cited source shows that the person explicitly uses the term "pansexual" to describe their own sexuality. --LukeSurlt c 09:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Perhaps this can be added to the guidance at the top of this page? That could definitely help people. Historyday01 (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of pansexual people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061019015905/http://www.afterellen.com/People/2006/8/dreya.html to http://afterellen.com/People/2006/8/dreya.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Alyson Stoner
I have removed Alyson Stoner from the list. In the cited article she states I, Alyson, am attracted to men, women, and people who identify in other ways. I can love people of every gender identity and expression. however she does not explicitly use the term "pansexual". As above I think this is necessary rather than us editors interpreting statements in this way. --LukeSurlt c 09:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I can agree with that. Besides, it is already mentioned on her Wikipedia page, and I think she is on some other LGBTQ list, so there's no loss there. Historyday01 (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Pan Celebrities
Should Brendon Urie of Panic! at The Disco be included on this list? he has described himself as pansexual 162.253.8.84 (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Brendon Urie is listed. --LukeSurlt c 16:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Notability and selection criteria?
Despite the presence of a banner in the Talk page, it needs to be demonstrated that this list in fact meets notability criteria. Also, since this list only contains people from very few countries who do not seem to have great prominence in the world, the selection criteria must be made clear. WP is not a container for random, unencyclopedic information. &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 17:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding the notability of the people on the list, we are currently using the common selection critera that the entries need to be the subject of stand-alone articles on this enyclopedia. This is pretty standard for lists like these and I can't think of a viable alternative or reason to change. --LukeSurlt c 21:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok. The page itself DOES meet notability criteria, like every other LGBTQ page on here, and as LukeSurl says in another comment, the common selection criteria is being used, and I'd say that's fine. Your comment isn't really helpful because it doesn't propose any changes and just grumbles that the page might not be notable and implies it includes "random, unencyclopedic information", claims which are both incorrect and wrongheaded. Historyday01 (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * What are the selection criteria for this list in particular? The common selection critera do not define what constitutes and who is an actual pansexual (with reliable sources to demonstrate) to be included in the list vs someone who just claims to be pansexual to appear open-minded and exotic in the queer hype of the last one or two decades, and why that listed information would be encyclopedic to anybody outside of the geographic scope of the list, e.g. for me as a gay European, as this list is not a representation of pansexuals worldwide, or even just in the Anglosphere, at which this WP is primarily aimed. I see no refutation here why this is not just a random list of information skewed towards the US. So either fix and expand the list, or remove it. - "wrongheaded" is a violation of WP:CIVIL. &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 10:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not pulling back any of my words about your views. Otherwise, you say that "common selection critera do not define what constitutes and who is an actual pansexual" but that is the wrong way to think about it. Those rules apply to ALL commonly written lists, with this list as one of those lists, as is clearly evident. Furthermore, I would say the list falls under "every entry meets the notability criteria" without a question and "short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group".
 * I would go further that the selection criteria (a person who is verified as pansexual) IS "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources". It is NOT "original or arbitrary". The beginning of the page now says: "This is a list of notable people who identify as pansexual and who are the subjects of articles on the English Wikipedia." That seems pretty cut and dry to me as selection criteria. LukeSurl proposed on here, back in 2007, clarifying this: "Considering that the distinction between pansexuality and bisexuality is debated...this list should only include persons where the cited source shows that the person explicitly uses the term "pansexual" to describe their own sexuality." I agree with that.
 * I take issue with your words about "someone who just claims to be pansexual to appear open-minded and exotic in the queer hype of the last one or two decades" as that cheapens people on the list, especially pansexual people, and LGBTQ people in general. That is not an attitude anyone should have while editing on here. It is better to be more optimistic and positive rather than cynical and negative, be more open to expanding Wikipedia rather than curtailing it.
 * Finally, while I did add some entries to the list today, pansexuality is often given a short shrift on here. I say that as a person who created the list for pansexual characters some time ago, as it didn't exist before I created that page, and a Media portrayal of pansexuality page. Additionally, there is a general bias on here toward US information. Even with all my editing, I can't fix the overall bias on Wikipedia, especially English Wikipedia, toward the U.S., on my own. If you would like to find more pansexual people on here who have pages AND are notable, than by all means, add them to the list, but I have the impression that there are very few pansexual people with pages, and even fewer who are not in the Anglosphere. Historyday01 (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty much in full agreement with here. We have straightforward criteria for the list that match Wikipedia standards and are presented to the reader in the header. Recording self-determiniations is the only viable way of organising this list, any attempt to evaluate if someone calling themsevles pansexual is an "actual pansexual" is both implausible and undesirable. While the English Wikipedia's general Anglosphere bias is inevitably a factor, some of the indentified imbalance on this list can be attributed to the cultural and liguistic complexities of the term "pansexual", both in English and in terms of its translations in other languages. --LukeSurlt c 13:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly, the criteria is pretty straightforward at this point. I can agree that "recording self-determiniations is the only viable way of organising this list" but trying to evaluate whether those calling themselves pansexual are genuine would be deeply problematic. Without a doubt, the bias on English Wikipedia toward the Anglosphere is an issue, and certainly some imbalance can be attributed to linguistic complexities of the word "pansexual". I would also say there is the additional issue that information about notable pansexuals who are not in the Anglosphere can be difficult to find, especially for those who don't know the native language. And even though I did add in some entries, as I noted in my last comment, I was unable to add in as many as I would have liked because some of the biography pages either had bad sourcing or no sourcing for the claims that the people were pansexual. Of course, I'll do my best to update those pages (who are almost completely in the Anglosphere) with better sources, but that will take time. Historyday01 (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Images
, what issue did this cause? As I can see any. Helper201 (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * General layout issues. With that many images on mobile one had to scroll through a lot of images to reach the table, and on desktop the column of images extended far below the table which was messy.
 * A few images are nice for illustration, but it’s not necessary to include an image for everyone for which a free image exists. If readers are particularly interested in a person they can click through to their article. LukeSurlt c 08:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)