Talk:Tie and tease

From Wikipedia, the free 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)