Talk:Tie and tease

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from Wipipedia, the free-content Fetish and BDSM encyclopedia.

[edit] Merge proposal

The subject matter of "tie and tease" and the same topic by several other names, is already covered in combination under Erotic sexual denial.

Does anyone have a strong and reasoned objection to merging into that article, or ideas what might be important that isn't in that article already? FT2 (Talk | email) 02:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a strong and reasoned objection. "Tie and tease" is a popular, well-known term and it deserves its own entry on Wikipedia. While it may be regarded as a form of erotic sexual denial, to have it as no more than a section of the latter article is like classifying the arithmetic mean as a type of Gauss linear estimator - technically correct, but not what the great bulk of users expect.--Taxwoman 20:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, it is a popular and well known term, but how exactly does it differ from material covered under "erotic sexual denial"? Can you explain a bit more?
I'm thinking of WP:MM, the page covering merging of articles:
"There are several good reasons to merge a page: ...
There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability."
I don't see a benefit to separate articles covering variants on the identical theme with much overlap, when one article with a redirect page would handle it better. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I oppose a merger. This is a standard term that many people may look up. Far fewer people would look for the other term. It is not good enough to say that there can be a redirect to the other article, which is much longer, has material irrelevant o tie and tease and has ann intimidating title. Surely the key isue is what would be most helpful to the average user; if a rigid piece of bureaucracy would prevent that, then WP:IAR.--Osidge 12:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I oppose too. There is no reason, under Wikipedia policy or guidelines, to merge. The argument seems to be that FT2 thinks that it would be tidier. This sems a weak argument offset against the convenience of users. If there is duplication, remove it from the other article. If that's impossible, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia and ther is no reason notto hae some duplication for the convenience of users.--Brownlee 09:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Not "tidier". Just more policy-compliant. When two articles substantively cover similar or the same basic subjects, its the norm to merge them with a redirect, to create one thorough article on the subject concerned. It seems applicable, since "tie and tease" and "erotic sexual denial" both cover the same basic subject - denial of (usually male) orgasm often combined with simultaneous stimulation of sexuality. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I'm not clear if WP:MM is a policy in the same sense that say WP:V is. Certainly there's no {{Policylist}} template on the page to suggest so. I also support the argument that we should look first to the convenience of users and invoke WP:IAR. It looks to me as if another aspect of WP:MM would apply: "If the merger is controversial, however, you may find your merger reverted, and as with all other edits, edit wars should be avoided."--Holdenhurst 16:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


Note: - Users Taxwoman, Osidge, Brownlee, and Holdenhurst were each sockpuppets of Runcorn. This was established in May 2007. Accordingly if revisited by future editors, the above discussion should be treated with caution. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)