Template talk:Sexual orientation/Archive 6

Proposal #3
And a third proposal based on Alynna's feedback on version 2. Please vote Support for only one of these! Steve CarlsonTalk 05:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - Looks good to me. --Alynna (talk) 06:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose For all the (apparently ignored) reasons provided. Where are Pansexual · Pomosexual · Autosexual in the (albeit irrelevant) APA definition? The answer is simple; the main title becomes Sexual Orientation/Preference  [Labels] [I can go with, for sure, because labelling is all we are talking about, here] and all the false boundaries, being maintained by the bigots, collapse. For now, I am willing to support 'my' grey-lined version, above, so as to assist the LGB 'community' and others, during their uncomfortable transition. Yours. Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All the previous proposals have explicit mentions of paraphilias and zoosexuality, which is what we're trying to address by moving them to Alternative perspectives on sexual orientation. If you want to make a new proposal that incorporates this idea, feel free, I'm only trying to facilitate this discussion a little. I would be happy to help you start a new draft in your user space. Steve CarlsonTalk 07:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I appreciate that and I am willing to compromise, as stated, and I have made my input on structure (although I would now like the title to be Sexual Orientation/Preference [Labels] -'Labels' debatable). Pedosexual/Zoosexual and Pedophilia/Zoophilia are not the same things. Being Pedosexual or even 'having Pedophilia' is no different, from being homosexual ... scientifically (it's in the brain and not of one's volition), legally (they are 'not illegal') or semantically (see this thread). If anyone doubts this, then they do not understand this issue, and they have little business contributing to edits. 'You' are conscientiously trying to make them different, by placing them in some low-level, second-class citizen, theoretical category. Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nigel, I understand your perspective. We are arguing about socially constructed labels and caetegories. But socially constructed as they are, they are nonetheless very real and emotionally laden. "Sexual orientation" is a term that is highly associated with the LGBT community, which is working very hard to achieve understanding and parity against heterosexism. Can you understand that people might not want this word associated with acts/beliefs that are considered illegal (conflating pedophilia with child molestation) or morally wrong according to many religious beliefs?  Whether or not they are correct to judge, it is these beliefs that inform the social construction of these labels and categories that we're arguing about.  So until the major prevailing attitude shifts, this systemic bias is reality, and this template's role is to represent that social construction. The overwhelming majority of the literature contradicts your position, which of course may reflect systemic bias, but it still makes the perspective you advocate a fringe perspective.  Thinking about it, Wikipedia policy actually encourages that its content reflects the systemic bias of the people and cultures that contribute to it, via WP:RS, which introduces the systemic bias of mainstream media, academians and publishers.  So it's admittedly biased, but wikipedia is not the platform for advocating that sort of change. So while it may seem like I am "conscientiously trying to make them different", what I am actually trying to do is use WP:WEIGHT to guide us towards a resolution. Steve CarlsonTalk 09:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do I care if I offend 'them' when I tell 'them' that (most of 'them') have one head, two arms and two legs? Of course not, because it is the verifiable truth. What if I conflate being homosexual with gay rape? Are you suggesting that, worldwide, being LGB is not religiously immoral? Can you see these fallacious positions? It's time to smell the coffee, again. Wikipaedia is 'here' to reflect verifiability, not to perpetuate social constructions or prejudices. If this is not true, it is a weakness of the Wiki (which I have already alluded to). I will say again ... can you not see the legitimate sources I have provided? ... and the fact; Sexual Orientation = Sexual Preference, so I have all that literature behind 'me', as well. This means "The overwhelming majority of the literature contradicts your position?" is, in fact, a falsehood. Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 09:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have seen your references, but there are thousands of others that are still accepted by the academic community that do not discuss these topics as part of sexual orientation. Again, WP:WEIGHT. Steve CarlsonTalk 09:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me be very clear. I do not really care about any structure of this wiki. I know the lunatics are running the asylum ;) I know the lobbyists, the powerful and those with vested interests are in the ascension (perhaps they always are). I am here, to offer a verifiable perspective, which is no more fringe than any other (quite the opposite, in the case of MAAs), which people simply ignore, because it serves their purpose, or they are at their level of understanding. This is the problem with the Post-Modern era, however, I still have to survive in it and try to change it. So, I withdraw any support or opposition. Do what you will ... the day knowledge becomes a democracy, is the day, when .... well, we have a PM era. I have said my piece (thank you all) and will discuss issues, when I see fit. Yours, Nigel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk • contribs) 09:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly, you did not carry out the literature task I set 'you':

"... and, possibly, finally, ‘Sexual Orientation’ replaced ‘Sexual Preference’, as the more acceptable, PC term (again, the LGBers doing their stuff). Now, Google for ‘Sexual Preference’ and ‘Paedophilia’ and see how many papers you get. Now, mentally, substitute the word ‘Preference’ with ‘Orientation’. I trust you are bright enough to see my point." Yours, Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 10:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And yes, it is a weakness of the wiki model. Steve CarlsonTalk 09:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose For the same reasons covered previously. Pomosexual and Autosexual are not on an equal footing with homosexuality or heterosexuality by a long shot. Heterosexual-homosexual continuum  was created three weeks ago; likely as a direct result of these discussions. Although possibly a worthy candidate after improving it needs a fair amount of work to allow issues to be sorted out and NPOV concerns to be addressed. For the same reasons I wouldn't want to see questioning or bi-curious even though they are also related. gynephilia and androphilia is another example of an article that's related to this but the article itself needs more work to justify it being held in the same regard as the rest. Banj e  b oi   09:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I see what you are saying (although you do not actually know if they are or not, because they are all inconsistently-defined labels), knowledge and verifiability are not some form of stamp/card-collecting exercise, requiring 'equal footing'. Sexual Orientation/Preference is sexual attraction to the object (and I prefer only physiologic, but that's just the positivist in me), and not one of Sexual ID (i.e. gender). Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the fact that an article isn't up to snuff is reason to exclude it from the template - having it on the template may actually help attract the attention of editors who can help. Steve CarlsonTalk 09:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hell yeah, why is 'Snuff' not on the list? ;););). Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 10:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally I would have opposed non-heterosexual before it was rewritten and reliably sourced; now everyone can look at the article and get a fairly good idea of what the term is about and how it's used, etc. The problem with most of the other articles is not that they are non-notable but that the articles themselves need so much more that we remain in trenched battle with fairly reasonable questions of what is this?, is it notable? and if so how? If pomosexual were better written it would be evident to all that it's a neologism that's notable enough but just barely. The issue, IMHO, is scope; an old version of alternative sexuality has a starting list of what could be endless debates. My hunch is we should err on the conservative side to stop the edit-warring altogether. Work on improving articles then see which ones seem stable, neutral and reliably sourced enough so adding them to the template remains a civil and productive process. Banj e  b oi   10:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support, loosely,, not my preference, doesn't deny pomosexual and autosexual but does deny other. A step in the right direction but not all the way there.  --Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC) 


 * oppose, this version is not fair how it tells you waht an orientation is and isn't. an orientation is what a person labels himself, not a tempalte box. --ALEKS1013 (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC) — ALEKS1013 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Proposal #4 withdrawn
personally, I'd rather see something like this:

it separates out the conventional usage from non-standard usages, without leaving out anything relevent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs)


 * Oppose. Appreciate the effort but categorizing as "standard" and "alternative", for starters, would seem to inflame problems. Alsi I think we'd be better to leave off the contentious items and sort them out bit by bit as there doesn't seems to be widespread support. Frankly, the voracity of debate and volume has repelled many of those who have previously weighed in. Extra bold changes should likely be shelved for thoughtful, constructive and more widely accepted ones. Banj e  b oi   00:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The designation of "standard", with the "non-standard" ones halfway down the template, has POV problems. I wouldn't mind having homo, hetero, and bi first in the list of orientations at the top, but they shouldn't be the only ones up there.  At a minimum, "pansexual", which is just as much about gender as "bisexual" is, should be in the same section as the other gender-based orientations.  Also, "asexual" is noncontroversial and should be in the main section. --Alynna (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * understandable, and I thought that might be a problem; I'll go ahead and withdraw this as a proposal. I was just looking for a way to distinguish the conventional categories from the neologisms. the voracity of the debate (as Banje put it) is a problem though...  is there any way to convince these 'repelled' to come back and weigh in on the various proposals?  it would be nice to get supports and opposes from people who have recently been quiet on the issue; that might offset some of the more personal comments that have been flying around.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think once the RfC ends - which I believe is 30 days long - so a few days from now, we can archive major chunks of the talk page to help clean it up. That will help with current volume. Nigel seems to be a bit of a newby but their postings have progressed to more of a constructive format so that dialog has also helped make conversation more fluid. My hunch is all but the most conservative proposals will fail to gain widespread support and even Steve Carlson's proposal has one major problem - the article isn't written yet so we can't really say include it until we can see it to ensure it comes close to being acceptable. Based on wisdom and the state of the other articles that I've previously mentioned this is a hurdle indeed. I very much admire Cooljuno411's passion for these subjects but as a word of friendly advice from my experience at AfD we want to avoid starting a fork-ish article then see either it or pomosexual et al targeted for deletion or a merge. Steve Carlson, I think, has a good concept of directing readers to a link where the articles can be found category:sexual orientation might be an option. All the more problematic articles are listed without weight or POV - it's simply a category list. It includes other gems previously left uncovered in these discussions like polysexuality, monosexuality and, possibly my favorite gay bomb. Instead of creating "Alternative perspectives on sexual orientation", which I think will cause more problems as mentioned above, would switching out for this category link seem to be an elegant solution? Banj e  b oi   01:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * hmm. assuming I understand what you're suggesting, I'll edit the withdrawn template to match - is this what you meant?  -- Ludwigs 2  23:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to my 'personal comments', then please do me the good favour of naming me, so that I may respond to you. They are 'repelled', because 'I' am, quite simply, correct. Now, the question is, why are ‘you’ still here selling the same tosh? The reason this situation is still not resolved, is that 'you’ are arguing from incorrect foundations and 'your' fallacies and prejudices have been exposed, and ‘you’ do not know what to do. What do you think the true, evidence-based intellectual does, in these circumstances? Keeps flogging that dead horse? - flog away. Ironically, your proposal is not far from being acceptable (if I was stating a position), but, once again, your prejudice makes it painfully-difficult for you to conceive the other widespread sexualities (now removed) in their rightful category. Yours, Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nigel, first off please try to post your comments after others so they remain in chronological order, this helps others understand context as well as who is stating what. I think it's a mistake to presume exactly why editors do or don't something so let's just agree that there are fewer people participating at the moment and hope that we can sort out some consensus that also abides by the spirits of what they had stated as concerns. Banj e  b oi   19:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Noted TY. I am merely commenting. I opted out of consensus, earlier. Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I will now cease from commenting, until after the template is finalised. Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nigel, I wasn't referring to you particularly; no offense. that comment was just a recognition of the heated nature of this debate, and the fact that there are only a handful of vocal participants in the discussion.  more opinons are always a good thing.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * oppose, this version is not fair how it tells you waht an orientation is and isn't. an orientation is what a person labels himself, not a tempalte box. --ALEKS1013 (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC) — ALEKS1013 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Homosexuality and bisexuality in animals
Once the above issues have been settled I'd like to see homosexuality and bisexuality in animals re-added, possibly under the "Study/research" section. Banj e b oi   10:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In "Sexual orientation/ in human sexuality"? Yours, Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article covers why the subject is studied - that is can we infer anything about the naturalness of non-heterosexuality in animals and are there implications for us human animals. It also covers heteronormative bias in research which also would seem relevant. Again, this could wait until the above debates have been sorted out. Banj e  b oi   00:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems like a reasonable thing to have in the study/research section. --Alynna (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Does it? No matter ... PM tosh once again. Everything animals (human and non) do is 'natural', for we are part of 'Nature', not divorced from it. I will not bother trying to illustrate the ridiculous nature of 'your' other PM concepts. No offence to you, intellectually, ‘you’ are just like a child with a semi-automatic pistol, fully-loaded. There is a lot of it about and is due to poor education and vested interests. I will take the 'newbie’ comment, above, as being a literal statement on my presence here and no more than that. Yours, Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I find your comments quite offensive and encourage you to strike them out. That article speaks of exactly what you refer - the naturalness of their sexual expression and how it is seen in research and mainstream cultures. Banj e  b oi   19:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Offense is part of learning, progress and the pursuit of knowledge. It is also explicit, within our Convention on Human Rights, to offend, via Free Speech. I know you find that very difficult to accept, but you will learn, in time ... if you really wish to learn. The title is clear, this template is about Human Sexuality. Your cabal have yet to deal with that. Change the title, if you so wish (or do not). Yours, Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Offending people on Wikipedia as a practice is forbidden per our policies on civility, please work a better working environment for all editors. If people choose or otherwise disregard your wisdom that doesn't open the door for attacks of any kind. As for the cabal accusation please see these words of wisdom. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj e  <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b oi   05:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Compelled to reply, due to time lag: No wiki overrides Human Rights. You may ban me, but you will not make me abandon those. The LGBT cabal is evidenced by the prejudiced comments and actions (in fact, direct references have been made to their 'sensitivities'). The cabal and its thralls are editing, here. Please do not waste your time pointing me to any wikitosh. I was contemplating and deciding my position, on such issues, long before any wiki was a twinkle in a piece of silicon eye. Yours, Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, you will want to stop openly insulting others if you wish to be part of this community. – Luna Santin  (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am part of the 'community'. Suck the lemon. Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify what you mean by "suck the lemon"? I'm not familiar with that turn of phrase. – Luna Santin  (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Nigel, you are not the only person in this conversation with a PhD, and even if you were there's no need to put on airs. this paranoid conspiracy-theory stuff is useless and silly, your tone is unnecessarily condescending, and - please! - offense is never a part of learning. no one is going to learn a darned thing from you if they think you are a jerk. tuck it in and settle down, ok? -- Ludwigs 2 20:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Compelled to reply, due to good manners: That is exactly what the expected reply would be ... and, no, you will never offend me :) Nice try, no banana. Yours, Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nigel, I'm not interested in your banana. [[Image:Face-devil-grin.svg|20px]] -- Ludwigs 2  01:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Editor Oldfield, you do realize that you're not actually discussing a specific ARTICLE about sexual orientation here, don't you? This is the discussion page about a TEMPLATE that is attached to ACTUAL articles to identify categories.  To discuss specific theories, natural phenomena, etc. it is best to actually visit the talk page of an real ARTICLE.  That would be like opening Linneus' notebook on HOW to categorize plants and animals, and scribbling current observations about a specific individual member of that species in the margin.  BMW  (drive)  22:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've made this argument repeatedly to both Nigel and CoolJuno - they have not to date responded to the issue, so I can't tell whether they don't understand the difference, or whether they do understand and choose to contest the issue on the template regardless. just as a matter of curiosity, I can't seem to find any template-specific policies or guidelines.  do you know of any?"  because if not, I may write one and ask to have it approved as a guideline.  there really should be some different editing rules for templates.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * BMW; How delightfully enlightening, TY, whoever you may be. Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * L; I have responded, both in words and action. Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal #5
OK, hoping to get some forward movement here without creating another article - which is problematic as I've mentioned previously - I've decided to whip up yet another proposal in hopes to find consensus. I've moved non-heterosexual to the "Research" section as it is more a research term although technically it is still an orientation. I've added sexology, also to the "Research" section as there didn't seem to be an issue with it. And removed the rest that seemed to be more problematic. The two main issues are that many of the articles contested are in poor shape so it's unclear how widely the terms are used and by whom and for what. The other issue is determining which of the many listed in Category:Sexual orientation should be included with a rough consensus that we already have the main ones. Instead I've added a category link so readers can look at all of them and decide which ones to investigate further. As a suggestion to Cooljuno411, if you are absolutely determined to get pomosexual et al onto a template, creating a template of lesser known sexual identities might actually be interesting with a section for archaic terms and working towards modern times with neologisms. In that way this template remains NPOV but you still have all the lesser known terms neatly organized. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj e <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b oi   09:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * oppose: biasly denies pomosexuals, asexuals, etc. It is not in our place to say who has a sexual orientation and who doesn't.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * side point - you've been asked to do this before, but could you please reduce the font on your signature? large fonts like that are discouraged. -- Ludwigs 2  22:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * support: good version. -- Ludwigs 2  22:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - maybe we need to change the title of this template to "Sexual Identity" to make it more general and inclusive. Would it be less controversial to call zoo/pomo/pedo etc. identities instead of orientations? Steve CarlsonTalk 07:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I'm convinced that nothing short of equal representation will be accepted by those promoting pomosexual et al. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj e  <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b oi   10:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * also, 'sexual identity' and 'sexual orientation' are distinct terms - you can't really use them interchangeably. of course, there is room for discussion on what the template should be reflecting, but it was originally an orientation template.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Template:Sexual identities already exists and Pomosexual was already added. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj e  <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b oi   23:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as nom. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj e  <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b oi   23:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. In my judgment, this is the best of the current proposals, not including the one that was withdrawn. Better because it doesn't include fringe concepts like "pomosexuality" as if they were equivalent to heterosexuality and homosexuality. Skoojal (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support This is cleaner and includes all major orientations. --Alynna (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support This looks like the best option to me. Although it leaves out Pomosexual, that is a neologism still and few people identify with the term.  Atom (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * oppose, even though it has the link to this list, who says which can appear on the template and which can't, this is very once sided. --ALEKS1013 (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC) — ALEKS1013 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strong oppose, this version is completely inappropriate for wikipedia, it flat out says a persons orientation is illegitimate if heir orientation is not included on this template. This versions is based on bias personal opinion and no true wikipedia neutrality, it puts people bellow others based on their sexual orientation, we have already learned this error in modern life with not allowing same-sex couples to marry based on orientation, and now we are going to do the same thing by not allowing equality on a template based on sexual orientation, I see shame when I see people who support this edit.. --StealthyVlad (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC) — StealthyVlad (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * StealthyVlad, this isn't a debate about the rights and wrongs of sexual behavior, or about what terms people should use to describe themselves. It's about what should and shouldn't be listed as sexual orientations in the template. Not including obscure terms like 'pomosexuality' here doesn't mean that people can't call themselves 'pomosexual', or that their sexuality is inferior to others. Skoojal (talk) 06:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So what gives the right for asexuality to be on the template, i would say that is just as "obscure". That is the issue with this edit, it biasly picks and choices what can go on the template and what can't, that is what i have been personally trying to tell everyone this whole entire time, all these edits are picking and choicing what can go on the template, solely by personal opinion with no justification. That is why i like the now titled proposal #0, it includes all, no bias picking and choicing. All or nothing, not a few you personally like, that is very unutral and un-wikipedia like, as stealthyvlad says. I as well believe this is a pathetic attempt of second class citizening people by saying their "obscure" orientations do not deserve to be on the template, BUT OH WAIT, we do give the second class citizens a few rights, we given them an "other" link at the bottom of the template, because they don't deserve to be around your first class orientations. Maybe you should look up a quote from Brown v. Board of Education, "separate but equal is not equal", and as you can obviously tell this isn't separate but equal, this is orientations and others "obscure", biasly segregated, orientations .--Cooljuno411 (talk) 07:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing has any 'right' as such to be listed on a template. Things are listed on templates because consensus produced by discussion says they should be. Asexuality is almost certainly not as obscure as pomosexuality, and the grounds for including it would be much better. Your agreement with StealthyVlad is noted, but the discussion still seems to be going against you. Skoojal (talk) 07:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've mark both and  as WP:SPAs - having few or no edits outside of this discussion, as yet I have no desire to follow up with a checkuser but we can go that route if this is a recurring issue.  <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj e  <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b oi   07:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support This is definitely the best of the proposals, although I have a couple suggestions: 1) "gender-based alternative concepts" could contain many more: Same-gender loving, MSM, Pomosexual, etc. In this section, I am unclear about what concepts should be included/excluded. Maybe this section should be considered in more detail. Or perhaps the categorized list is sufficient and this section should be removed. 2) I think Queer Studies should be included under research, especially considering Sexology is included. Queer Studies is often research based and not simply theoretical. Queerudite (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well consider looking at this edit, it is similar to what you are talking about, i would like you input on this version. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmm, in the link you specified there are no additional items under the "gender-based alternative concepts" or the "study" (research) section. Perhaps you meant to link to a different proposal? Also that proposal has a number of other problems, such as the confusion of transexual as a sexual orientation (transsexualism is a gender identity) and a paraphilia section (most mental health organizations do not consider sexual orientations to be paraphiliac). Queerudite (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think a discussion on scope is warranted. I'll start a new thread just on whether to include Queer Studies. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj e  <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b oi   22:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Consensus? This is looking like the way to go, given the responses. if there is no further discussion over the next couple of days, I'll edit it it.  (incidentally, if someone else goes about the editing in before I get to it, note that there are some formatting changes to the the current template that should be preserved...).-- Ludwigs 2  01:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What formatting issues? <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj e  <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b oi   07:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * see here. nothing major, but I hate to remove people's work needlessly.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a lot going on there! Could you be more specific what needs to change? <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj e  <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b oi   22:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Any changes to this current draft of the template will require a whole new session of discussion, and will need an entirely new to discuss the proposed template. People voted in support OF THIS particular edit, not the new edit you are trying to promote. If you make any changes to this edit, it has become a new proposed edit and all the support for this template does not transfer over to your new template, that will be a brand a new edit, and will require a whole new proposal. People voted in support of THIS edit, not the edit you are trying to assert. If you want to propose a new edit, start a new section. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please dial it down a bit and let's sort out what they are proposing before we jump on the idea. In general, yes, I think we should be cautious about making any substantial changes - hence I started a new section just on Queer studies. Let's see what they have in mind. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj e  <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b oi   07:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)