Talk:Tendril perversion

Comments
Is this an example of a topological defect? I don't know the field well enough to be sure. -- The Anome (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Telephone cord?
If someone has an photo of a helical phone cord, where the direction of twist reverses, that would be good, as it indicates the helix segments on both sides of a perversion, thereby showing a hemihelix with one perversion. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 05:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC).

Redirect
Is the disambugation at the top of the article really necessary? Though the two are synonyms, I can't imagine anyone confusing the two in any search that isn't meant deliberately as a joke. 129.130.19.169 (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * There's no reason not to keep it. What do you mean by "I can't imagine anyone confusing the two in any search" in this case? If I hadn't heard the phrase tendril perversion before reading this article, I'd probably have been mistaken about its meaning. BlueBanana (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a reason not to keep it, it's superfluous and unnecessarily obscene. "Tendril perversion" is not a euphemism or synonym anyone uses for tentacle porn. First of all a tendril is not a tentacle. Second of all if you hear the term "tendril perversion" and search it up, there's no reason to redirect you to tentacle porn, because the article on tendril perversion explains what it is. Nobody types "Tendril perversion" because they want information about tentacle pornography.
 * It's going.
 * Userino (talk) Userino (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Although I do see how the disambiguation (not a redirect) could be found humorous in a "haha sex related topic" kind of way, and I agree with the sentiment I presume you share that Wikipedia articles shoudn't go out of their way to try to be funny, they shouldn't go out of their way to edit anything and everything that anyone could find accidentally comedic, either. Were it not for the perceived obscenity, no one would think twice of the disambiguation and we would not be having this discussion.
 * While tendril is indeed not a tentacle, the about-template isn't meant for synonyms, so that point is moot. The case for removing the template hinges on layers of assumptions on how and why the reader finds this article that I don't think we should be making. And even in the case your assumptions are correct, that the reader is familiar with the topic, is looking for some specific information, and knows what they are looking for, they can just skip the notice and proceed to read the article. BlueBanana (talk) 09:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. The idea that someone would only ever encounter this page looking for this specifically is a major assumption, especially when you take ESL speakers into account.  We're dealing with two titles that are essentially made up of two synonyms.  Tendril/Tentacle and Perversion/Erotica.  That's a very easy shuffle to make if you are not familiar with the exact verbiage used to describe both.
 * The only reason to remove it is a puritan idea that wikipedia must be pure and clean, and it is shameful to even briefly reference anything of a sexual nature on pages that are not inherently sexual. This has never been the case. Crashbrennan (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored. Obscenity is not a valid justification for the removal of a disambiguation link, and neither is someone finding content humorous. It is useful (the words are synonyms, and so could genuinely be confused by non-native English speakers), and thus it will stay. LesbianTiamat (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)