The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:YJFL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Doesn't really navigate anything as the vast majority of these links are simply back to the parent article. And as junior clubs most of them are unlikely to meet WP:N anyway. WP:NENAN. Jenks24 (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Perhaps red linking or removing the wikilinks of those that are redirected to the main article because the navbar still serves some purpose. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Happy to support this compromise, would prefer no link over red link Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Template has been delinked, relisting for more opinions on it in its current state. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a violation of WP:N. बिनोद थारू (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox gender and sexual identity (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm deeply skeptical that there is enough structured data about genders and sexual identities to justify infoboxen. On some articles like Bi-curious this just wraps a flag. On others like Bisexuality it's just a flag plus a repetition of prose content from the article's lede sentence. When more detail is given, it's often original research or questionable takes, like Asexuality including demisexuality as a subcategory or Pansexuality having an ostensible "Parent category" of bisexuality (what???). Yes, these are fixable on a per-article basis, but the fundamental issue is the genders and sexualities are not cognizable things. They are vague ideas of human feelings and subcultures, no more suited for infoboxen than emotions or broad ideological movements. They cannot be reduced to simple metadata in the manner of, say, a person or country. Delete, replacing with flag images as appropriate. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 12:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WT:LGBT notified. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 12:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it seems this info-box too often becomes a WP:DISINFOBOX which aggressively attracts the marginally literate eye with apparent promises to contain a reductive summary of information; not all information can be so neatly contained. Like a bulleted list, or a timeline that substitutes for genuine history, it offers a competitive counter-article, stripped of nuance. As a substitute for accuracy and complexity, a box trumps all discourse. Zenomonoz (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, it looks ridiculous having these info-boxes above two other sidebars, as on Asexuality. Incredibly distracting and takes away from the articles. Zenomonoz (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  See also discussion here about disinformation and controversy and why it is still useful to have this infobox on these specific pages. ArcMachaon (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose/Keep the infobox is useful, especially in gender identity articles. If there's disinformation in the infoboxes, then it should be removed or discussed in the article's talk pages. The problem here's not the infobox alone. MikutoH (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it can be very useful in the articles with third gender/non-Western genders. This is particularly (although not exclusively) the case where these genders are recognised by governments. I created the infobox when I saw an infobox for ethnicity used on Hijra to try to capture numbers as recognised by the Indian and Pakistani governments (amongst others), which all recognise a third gender on official documents (which I believe counters the narrative that these are like emotions or ideological movements). If you want to remove the infobox from specific articles where they aren't useful, that is something to do on a per article basis. ArcMachaon (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  See also discussion here from 3 years ago ArcMachaon (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per MikutoH and ArcMachaon. Genders and sexualities are identities, they are not comparable to vague emotions or ideologies; there are numerous articles where this infobox is useful. HaiFire3344 (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I understand the argument for its usefulness on articles like Hijra (South Asia), but I do not agree with it. All the information currently in the infobox is done much better justice in the lead and body. The definition provided in the infobox not only is what should be covered by the very first sentence in the article, but is also a worse version of it (it doesn't mention the intentional community aspect of the identity, which seems quite central). I don't even understand what "classification" is supposed to be. I guess it's just meant to separate gender and sexual identities, but it seems completely useless. Synonyms can be better covered in prose, with eventual nuances and all. "Associated terms" is incredibly vague, and does not at all explain how they are associated, or what the nuances are. The demographics section is a mess, which makes sense because demographics of queer populations rarely are unambiguous. That the hijra are associated with South Asian culture should be clear from the first sentence or two. The figure for India says in a footnote that it applies to Southeast Asia, which according to our article doesn't even include India! It says they are "legally recognized" in several countries, but the body explains they do not have the right to vote! And saying they have "limited" protection tells us nothing at all. Overall, this template encourages useless and even harmful denuancing of information that inherently requires nuance. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and others above; topic is very unsuited for infoboxes and as seen has tendency to oversimplify and be inaccurate. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This infobox inherently simplifies concepts and deprives them of nuances. It is actively unhelpful for our readers. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 19:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and others. There's a pretty wide line where reasonable people can argue over the usefulness of infoboxes. This one is way on the wrong side of that line. Infoboxes work best for a well-defined set of articles that all share a fairly common set of non-generic summarizable data, which this case fails. Not surprisingly, it's a complicated, nuanced topic, and infoboxes like this tend to be not only useless, but actively misleading. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination and others. This template serves little purpose that can not be met by just including a few more words in the lead. Log.base (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per MikutoH, ArcMachaon, and HaiFire3344. MarichanIsCute (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The template provides a neat and transparent summary of the general characteristics at a glance. Any contentious content can be discussed in the article's talk pages and removed if untrue. I disagree with the OP's view of genders and sexualities as vague ideas of human feelings and subcultures. Sexual identity is not a subculture but a deeply ingrained concept of oneself. --TadejM ^{my talk} 12:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per those above. Zanahary (talk) 08:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Issues discussed are about content, and can be remedied through discussion at individual article level. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Useful as a directory for the different kinds of genders, and to navigate between articles about them. बिनोद थारू (talk) 19:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Tamzin and Maddy. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per TadejM, gender and sexual identities are changing somewhat, however they are fairly well defined in the modern academic literature. Well defined enough that having the infobox with the general characteristics is helpful. Daaxix (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.