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 Child grooming#Over the Internet. --BDD (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Internet Grooming → Online predator (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

I just don't see how they are related. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it may be explained by this section Child_grooming#Over_the_Internet. It's kinda messed up.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to section Child_grooming#Over_the_Internet. Nice find. Now the police will be on to me for child grooming, I expect: so I better say right now I never have and never would engaged in that behaviour, like most right-thinking people. I'd prefer to groom horses or be a groom at a wedding. We need to have the explanation of this disgusting behavior, and I think Lenticel's is the best place to retarget it. I realise Lenticel's was a comment not a suggestion, but I am going stronger. Si Trew (talk) 11:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I felt sick after finding that this thing existed. But yeah, retarget.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Si Trew. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Si Trew. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagreeing with myself as usual, I think Child sex tourism might be the better target. Grooming (R to DAB) should probably have it listed, though: I won't touch that until we have consensus here. I would have thought "Grooming" meant "child grooming", at least that is the common use of the term in Britain. I can certainly RS that. Internet grooming is red. I've notified the creator of the R way back in 2006, when it was retargeted after an article change: since then it has been pretty much sitting where it stands. The stats show it gets <1 hit day, excluding the last couple of days of this discussion, so perhaps it is just harmless. Si Trew (talk) 08:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also UK based but I've never heard "internet grooming" used in any sense other than child grooming, so I think a straight redirect there will be better than going via the dab. I also don't see the need to list this on the dab page as the target already has a link. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) I was about to strike mine I think Lenticel's original suggestion is the best. Si Trew (talk) 11:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point Thrduulf. I'll try to get RS for the exact term "Internet grooming", and add the cites here if I do. Si Trew (talk) 11:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most RS seems to call it "Online grooming", which Rs to the target but not to the section; so perhaps we should R that to the section too? I don't mind looking up the details tlo get RS but online sources are a bit coy. I tried a search for "man convicted of Internet grooming" to see what came back an all said "Online grooming". Si Trew (talk) 11:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that "Online grooming" and "Internet grooming" were sufficiently synonymous that they should both lead to the same content. If there exist reliable sources calling it "online grooming", then I don't see the need to explicitly find a RS calling it "Internet grooming" - nobody is going to be astonished if they search for one term and end up at an article using the other. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2014 (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.

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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Pokemon Z → Pokémon X and Y (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

No indication that Pokemon Z ever really existed. Might be a search term, but I'm not sure it's much use there (grok says 200 hits in 90 days). Protonk (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. As a Pokémon fan, I know for sure a Pokémon Z game does not exist, and if Nintendo were to make a Pokémon Z game, it would not redirect here. PLEASE delete. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Pokémon Z exists, pointing at the same target. Seems likely search term by your own stats. At the target it mentions nothing, but seems a likely target. I'll tie up the R from dias if not already done. Si Trew (talk) 11:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Between June and October this got between 48 and 115 hits each month, which is very high for a redirect (higher than many articles even). A Google search shows that there is/was a lot of speculation about a Pokémon Z game, so it's something that could easily be mentioned on a relevant article. It isn't currently though and until it is the present target seems best. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per WP:BALL A8v (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BALL is about not speculating in Wikipedia's voice. However this discussion is not about that, but rather how we can best serve the many people who are searching for his topic. Indeed there is a lot of discussion about this title, so it is possible that there some reliable sources discussing the rumours, etc. that could be included somewhere (as WP:BALL permits coverage of other people's speculation if it is notable). Thryduulf (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not seeing it anywhere. There are a few comments about how they don't want ORAS to be "Pokemon Z" but that's like a director saying "I don't want to make the Godfather IV here..." Otherwise it's random forum threads that lead nowhere. Now the "sourcing" threshold for a redirect is pretty darn low. All we'd really have to believe is the usability/validity of Pokemon Z as a search term. In that case i've got a few problems. It's not clear whether Z should redirect to X and Y (it is just one letter off in a certain sense) or if it should be redirected to ORAS (as it was a rumored sequel which never actually existed, ORAS was the only one in development). Alternately we could let people know pokemon Z doesn't exist by not having it redirect. I'm not saying it's a hoax, but it's basically the most harmless variant of one. Protonk (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The game doesn't exist outside of old speculation and rumors. Even if they do release a new version of X and Y, we don't know for sure that it would even be called Pokemon Z. Kaciemonster (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, just for comparison, the traffic stats for X and Y are 96517 hits in 90 days, while the redirect has 200. Kaciemonster (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Si and Thry - valid and likely search term, given the recent speculation. If a game is released in the future under a different name, we can retarget then. Ivanvector (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't find much recent speculation at all. The most recent thing I'm seeing is a few sentences in this interview where the producers basically say "no comment" as to whether or not they were ever going to make Pokemon Z. Everything else is forum posts and articles from before Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire were announced. Kaciemonster (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2014 (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.