WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Broken template[edit]

i can't figure out why this template i've made is broken. could someone fix the coding? Kikodawgzzz (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed it - problem was some mis-matched brackets. Zodon (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template needs development[edit]

At the moment this template just covers areas already covered by other templates. ((Gender and sexual identities)), ((LGBT)), ((Sexual orientation)), and ((Close relationships)). The idea of this template was proposed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality#Sexuality sidebar/template/side-navbar?. It would be prudent to promptly reshape it along the lines proposed there (or whatever else interested editors deem appropriate) to make it into a distinct template, lest it be deleted as a duplicate. Zodon (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[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[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 a sexology template, i.e., to deal with the sexuality topics of scientific and research-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 the Template: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[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[reply]
Our trouble here would seem to be that sexological 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[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 also Wikipedia:Navigation templates. For all these reasons, the purpose is probably better served by use of categories Category:Sexology and/or lists Index of sexology articles. Zodon (talk) 06:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Any objection to the addition of Affair to this template? (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Latest additions to the template[edit]

Since Ve4ernik has yet to address the additions he made to the template here on the talk page, I am doing so now. I reverted Ve4ernik here and here. 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 at Template:Sex or is already covered there. Discuss on the talk page." I also noted, "And gender topics (transgender or otherwise) do not belong on this template; we have Template:Gender and sexual identities and Template:Transgender sidebar for that."

The template states, "This template is about the essentials of modern human sexuality as currently scientifically and societally understood, including sexological topics. It is not a template related to various sexual acts 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 modern human sexuality as currently scientifically and societally understood." In what way does the vast majority of what Ve4ernik added classify as "essentials of modern human sexuality as currently scientifically and societally understood"? Pedophilia? Not essential to human sexuality in the least; that is a paraphilia that is covered at Template:Paraphilia. Sexcam? That article does not yet exist, nor do I think it should exist. Templates are not for WP:Redlinks. And with regard to being transgender, gender identity is not the same thing as sexuality.

On a side note: There is no need to WP:Ping me to this section since this template/talk page is on my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 04:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And when it comes to topics about human reproduction, we have Template: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 that we 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[reply]

OK, I agree that the majority of things that I added to the template should instead be added to Template:Sex and not this one (you may add them yourself if you want to or I will add them to Template: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). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ve4ernik (talkcontribs) 21:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ve4ernik, (last time WP: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 to WP:Edit war, especially since WP:Edit warring often leads to no resolution and can get me WP: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[reply]

Discussion about sexuality templates[edit]

Anthony Appleyard, if you look at the edit history for Template:Human sexuality, it now only shows Sharif uddin in the edit history, but it had more history than that, which is evident by Template talk:Human sexuality. So the edit history that was at Template:Human sexuality got lost during what Sharif uddin was doing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In other words, Template:Human sexuality had been around for years; as seen at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 September 5#Template:Human sexuality, there was a proposal to delete it, but that proposal failed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've asked another editor to weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not know what should be done in a case like this, but as mentioned above, User:Sharif uddin moved Template:Human sexuality to Template: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[reply]
I see, Johnuniq. Thanks for that. So what do you think should be my next course of action now? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would say that WP: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[reply]
Also, Anthony Appleyard, what do you think should be done to reconcile the edit history split? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
I'm having the pages moved back since they were moved without discussion, and I'd already told you about such moves. You don't get to come in and make all these extensive changes without discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
Replied here. And Jenks24 moved the page back. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, you moved those templates you created, seemingly after considering what was stated by me and Johnuniq about you having created them. I don't see that Template:Sex (biology) sidebar is needed. Template:Sex (biology), which looked like this before you redirected 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[reply]
For how this was resolved, see here and here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Template:Human sexualityTemplate:Sex – The template should be merged with the Template:Sex, as both templates are indifferently centered on the same topic of Human sexuality. See Wikipedia:Proposed mergers#New requests. Sharif uddin (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]