Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tinctoria References

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names. Please could the people who know this sort of stuff do this editorially? Sandstein 18:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Tinctoria

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Every entry here is a partial title match. Deleting all these entries leaves an empty disambiguation page. With no redirect target in site, delete is the only option left. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 02:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: Nearly every entry here is populated by {{ Species abbreviation}} which reached consensus to delete at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 27#Template:Species abbreviation. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 02:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete due to a Google search turning up nothing but Wikipedia articles about plants. smileguy91^{talk -
contribs} 02:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note Add two other forms of this Latin word to nomination for the same reason. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 02:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Also adding Innotata. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 04:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Also adding Giganteum and Gigantea (species). For Gigantea, the first entry is a genus, not a species. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 04:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment. All except Innotata have a Wiktionary entry (for the lower case word). Would replacing these pages by soft redirects to Wiktionary be better than actual deletion? DexDor^(talk) 06:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Redirect to List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names, perhaps specifying the section (letter of alphabet) adding them where not already present - Tinctorius is already listed there. I am going to suggest that the entries there for whole words, as opposed to prefixes, should include a link to {{ in title}}, which would provide a useful service to readers. Pam D 13:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Have now added Giganteus and Innotatus to that list. Pam D 13:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply

And had a go at enhancing it - see List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names#I–K for three variations on how to do it, or see Talk:List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names#Searching on species names Pam D 14:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Have now upgraded that list in sections A,B and C: takes a little time, what with following up side issues which crop up as I go. But I'll get it done. Pam D 14:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC) "D" now done. Pam D 15:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment See also discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Species_abbreviations. Pam D 13:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note I am okay with the redirect idea. I didn't know the list existed when I nominated. I'm maintaining a list of similar pages at User:Oiyarbepsy/Species abbrevation and any editor is welcome to add to it. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 03:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I concur with regard to WP:PTM, the pages contribute very little over search engine output. Section redirects seem reasonable, although if we wanted to keep the navigation aid, we should also sprinkle {{ in title}} in the list article. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 12:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply
~~Back to delete~~ I've reconsidered my comment above and concluded that a redirect would be worse than worthless to our readers. A reader encountering one of these words probably saw them in a species name, and to be redirect to a page that tells them it's used in species names is entirely pointless. The search function would serve readers better in this case. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 17:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply

A redirect to a page which (a) tells them that it's used in species names, (b) links to Wiktionary, (c) explains its meaning and (d) offers an "in title" link to articles including it (as in my proposed enhancement of List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names, currently implemente at I-K), would be far from pointless. Pam D 12:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

But is it more useful than a page of search results? I would say no. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 12:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I think it is more useful - and have enhanced section "A" of the list. Pam D 18:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

A redirect is cheap, too (literally: as I recall a redirection actually takes up less server space than a deletion does). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Redirect per PamD. DexDor^(talk) 10:39, 6 December 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 (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.