This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofhuman sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
This template is of interest toWikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of allLGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit theproject page or contribute to thediscussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This template was considered fordeletion on2014 September 5. The result ofthe discussion was "no consensus".
This template was considered fordeletion on2016 July 15. The result ofthe discussion was "no consensus".
Agreed, but some or another user seems to have just pared down the whole thing to a single line. I'm reverting to an earlier version to rescue it.Kikodawgzzz (talk)18:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in the edit summaries for the removals - the sections removed were duplicates of more specific templates, i.e.{{Transgender}} which covers the sex roles section, and{{Gender and sexual identities}} and{{Sexual orientation}} which cover sex orientation.
If there is some specific reason why just those articles belong here and not others in the same topic areas, and why those portions of other templates need to be duplicated here - that needs to be explained.
Even better would be to expand on the original stated intention of this template - to cover the social science aspects of human sexuality. Making it clearly cover new ground, and make it clear what the inclusion principles are would give it a purpose.
Given that this area already has a lot of templates and the sexuality portal it is hard to see what a general template like this can usefully cover. I looked around human sexuality and sexology a bit, but didn't see obvious directions in which to expand this template.
There is no point in just duplicating other templates (see, e.g.WP:POV fork).
The original impetus for this template might be better covered by a template on asexuality, or something along those lines. There seem to be a cluster of related articles on similar topics (philosophy, practice, etc.)
I originally suggested creating a draft (not starting a template yet) to clarify the idea of this template and to develop it into something. (A draft could sit around in talk space indefinitely until the ideas developed). When this template was created I figured it was reasonable to leave a little time for it to develop, but so far it hasn't developed any clear reason to exist. Absent expansion to cover new areas, I think this template should either be moved to become a template on asexuality (or similar), or just deleted.Zodon (talk)20:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing a key factor here (which surprises me, because originally you were on my side in my doing this). This template is meant to basically be asexology template, i.e., to deal with the sexuality topics ofscientific andresearch-based interest. There are certainly enough scientific phenomena within sexuality to warrant a template composed exclusively of those things--heterosexuality,homosexuality,genderqueer studies, the dozens and maybe hundreds of different types of relationships human beings can get into with each other, and on and on. It seems ludicrous to me that "Human Sex" should somehow be lumped all together into one huge smorgasbord of sexual positions, sexual orientations, and sexual practices simply because they all have sex as a common root. There are scientific ways to explore sexuality, which is what sexology is, and there should be a template with emphasis on specifically sexological topics, which is what theTemplate:Human sexuality is supposed to be. Instead of paring it down or tearing it apart, why don't we help build it together into what it's meant for?Kikodawgzzz (talk)22:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to building up the template - that is what I indicated was needed at the start of this discussion. If you see a manageable size group of articles with a common theme that aren't already adequately linked by the portal or other templates, by all means add them. That is what I understood the purpose of this template to be - to cover areas that aren't covered by other templates. Pearing off items that are already covered by other templates does not mean opposition to the template - it is an essential part of editing.
As noted, I looked around the overview articles on these topics and didn't see obvious articles to add. So be bold - propose or add specific articles/or groupings of articles that aren't already covered by more specific templates. Since you see lots of articles that make sense for this template - what are they?Zodon (talk)01:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Our trouble here would seem to be thatsexological topics, when speaking strictly sexologically, and not leaving any room for 'blurring the lines',do indeed include things that for now are already under other templates. There is a lot of crossover between the topics that are dealt with sexologically and in social psychology on the one hand (i.e. scientifically), and also sexually (in the sense of sexual acts, sexual arousal, sexual positions) as well. Often the sexological aspects of homosexuality (to use only one example) are crossed-over so thoroughly with the sociological and the sexual aspects, within the articles themselves, that it would be impossible to somehow 'separate out' these factors in any significant way. On the other hand,the G-spot may be an example of an article that could more definitively fit in the sexology-centered 'slant' of this new template, that is to say, without crossing over, or at least without crossing over nearly as much. If anyone else thinks of anything else please let us know on here.Kikodawgzzz (talk)18:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[Outdent] Perhaps a navigation template is not a good way to provide the function you are looking for. "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles"Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. You indicate that the collection of articles may not be small. You also indicate that it overlaps a lot with aritcles already in navigation templates (templates of long-standing, well developed, reasonable to large size, etc.) There also appears to be ambiguity (fuzzyness/cross-over) in the inclusion criteria. See alsoWikipedia:Navigation templates.For all these reasons, the purpose is probably better served by use of categoriesCategory:Sexology and/or listsIndex of sexology articles.Zodon (talk)06:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SinceVe4ernik has yet to address the additions he made to the template here on the talk page, I am doing so now. I reverted Ve4ernikhere andhere. When I stated, "Revert, per what the template states.", Ve4ernik replied, "The edits do respect the template description and are relevant." I then stated, "Wrong; read the template. You added a bunch of stuff that is better covered atTemplate:Sex or is already covered there. Discuss on the talk page." Ialso noted, "And gender topics (transgender or otherwise) do not belong on this template; we haveTemplate:Gender and sexual identities andTemplate:Transgender sidebar for that."
The template states, "This template is about the essentials of modernhuman sexuality as currently scientifically and societally understood, includingsexological topics. It isnot a template related to various sexualacts and their offshoots; for that, see{{Sex}}. Before considering adding an item to this template, try to find a more specific navigation template, if one exists. When adding or removing an item from the template, be sure to make the appropriate change to the target page as well."
Notice the words "essentials of modernhuman sexuality as currently scientifically and societally understood." In what way does the vast majority of what Ve4ernik added classify as "essentials of modernhuman sexuality as currently scientifically and societally understood"?Pedophilia? Not essential to human sexuality in the least; that is aparaphilia that is covered atTemplate:Paraphilia.Sexcam? That article does not yet exist, nor do I think it should exist. Templates are not forWP:Redlinks. And with regard to being transgender,gender identity is not the same thing as sexuality.
And when it comes to topics about human reproduction, we haveTemplate:Human reproductive physiology. I'm not stating that none of what Ve4ernik added to Template:Human sexuality can validly be on the template; I'm stating thatwe outline scopes for templates and have other templates for a valid reason -- so that these templates do not become overcrowded with any and everything related or slightly related to the topics. This is why templates advise to look for more specific and/or better templates that the listings might fit on.Flyer22 (talk)04:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I agree that the majority of things that I added to the template should instead be added toTemplate:Sex and not this one (you may add them yourself if you want to or I will add them toTemplate:Sex later), but I think that masturbation shouldn't have been excluded from the template as it is a perfectly valid sexual relationship (but with oneself) and is 'essential to human sexuality' as it has been practiced almost universally by people throughout history (and including the present).— Precedingunsigned comment added byVe4ernik (talk •contribs)21:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ve4ernik, (last timeWP:Pinging you to this section because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies), I don't think that you should go to Template:Sex and add all of what you added here to there. Like I noted, some of what you added here is already on Template:Sex, and we have other and/or more appropriate templates for some of the things you added. Going back to pedophilia again, for example, I don't see why that should be on Template:Sex. I think you should propose on the talk page of that template some things you think should be on that template, so that those matters can be worked out. I have that template on my WP:Watchlist as well, and I will revert additions to it that I do not consider an improvement. I prefer to discuss than toWP:Edit war, especially since WP:Edit warring often leads to no resolution and can get meWP:Blocked. As for adding masturbation to Template:Human sexuality, I agree with you adding that; I also saw it and it struck me as appropriate for this template.Flyer22 (talk)00:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking atTemplate:Human sexuality andTemplate:Human sexuality and sexology and trying to see exactly what was done. From what I see, it looks likeSharif uddin split the Human sexuality template material to create a new (somewhat redundant) template. He took the material fromTemplate:Sex to create a new Human sexuality template, and moved the original Human sexuality template to Human sexuality and sexology. It was a cut and paste move, which ended up deleting the edit history of Template:Human sexuality. This needs fixing, reverts and all. I thought about listing this atWP:Requested moves, but since this is also a histmerge case, this venue seemed like the better option. I also commented on his talk page about the problem with histmerges, but maybe one of the editors here is willing to explain the issue in better detail than I did.Flyer22 Reborn (talk)20:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know what should be done in a case like this, but as mentioned above,User:Sharif uddin movedTemplate:Human sexuality toTemplate:Human sexuality and sexology. The former should therefore be a redirect to the latter. However, the user then edited the former with text from elsewhere. My uneducated opinion is that there would need to be a compelling reason why the former template should be changed while hiding its edit history on another page. That reason should be provided in advance, and until then the edits and move should be reverted—an admin would have to revert the move. Technically, the edit history is not lost, it's just in an unexpected place, so I don't think a history merge is needed. If it were, the remedy would be to revert the recent edits and move, then (if agreed by consensus), the former template could be changed to new content.Johnuniq (talk)23:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would say thatWP:RMUM applies. That is, the move was of an established page, and was undiscussed. However, and sorry to drag it out, perhaps there should first be a quick discussion somewhere (a wikiproject?) to see if anyone has an opinion. My eyes glaze over with navboxes like these and for all I know there might be a reason the new arrangement is better.Johnuniq (talk)00:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sex an human sexuality is not the same, (actually there is a broad difference between the all out sense of sex and the human sexual outline) but the template named sex was completely and clearly about human sexuality but It could not be moved because of technical restrictions of any of the admins, previously I left a comment on the talk page about that but no one gave any response to that. So I did these because there should be a clearance of title in wikipedia and I undoubtedly think that merging the history shall be better for that.Sharif uddin (talk)02:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But I tried to discuss but in that case no one is eager to discuss but just ignore the topic, Is that it clear partiality about the matter? And please don't move back the pages until the discussion is over.Sharif uddin (talk)03:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I recently made two template about sex (sex in biology)Template:Sex (biology) andTemplate:Sex (biology) sidebar, I tried to move the page naming sex which should be its actual name but failed because the template naming sex was present which was about human sexuality and any of the administrator restricted the option to move this page. I requested a move and gave message to the template"s talk page but nobody bothered about it, so I took this actions my selves to clarify the matter.Sharif uddin (talk)03:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you moved those templates you created, seemingly after considering whatwas stated by me andJohnuniq about you having created them. I don't see that Template:Sex (biology) sidebar is needed. Template:Sex (biology), which looked likethis before youredirected it, can be considered helpful, but I don't see that it needed a rename.Flyer22 Reborn (talk)03:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
