| Revision as of 20:54, 24 February 2007 editXomic (talk | contribs)1,271 edits →merge to []?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:53, 1 March 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == merge to ]? == | == merge to ]? == | ||
| I wish to merge this article with the list of uncommon fetishes, this a stub and not be notable; any objections.--]<sub>]</sub> 20:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC) | I wish to merge this article with the list of uncommon fetishes, this a stub and not be notable; any objections.--]<sub>]</sub> 20:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :I am opposed to such a merge. Why would combining this into a larger list article make any more sense? Unless the various articles in such lists are deeply interdependent, they should be split into multiple articles. Also, what do you mean by not notable? Uniform fetishism is a common occurrence. --] 20:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC) | :I am opposed to such a merge. Why would combining this into a larger list article make any more sense? Unless the various articles in such lists are deeply interdependent, they should be split into multiple articles. Also, what do you mean by not notable? Uniform fetishism is a common occurrence. --] 20:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::It's also a stub with no sources.--]<sub>]</sub> 20:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC) | ::It's also a stub <s>with no sources</s>. My mistake, it does have a source.--]<sub>]</sub> 20:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::Just because it's a stub doesn't mean it should be dropped into a big list. --] 21:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::'''oppose''' merge. ] 05:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| This article stands quite well on its own. Is there any reason to merge other than to justify having a ]?--] 20:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == This article is referenced == | |||
| The article, before it was converted to a redirect without any discussion, had two references. Were there any points in the article not covered by these references? If so, they should be properly flagged.--] 21:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Not quite. The article had a single external link to a gay uniform fetish website and an ambiguous ref to the "The Visual Dictionary of Sex". You can't ref a sex dictionary and then just write an entire article on the subject saying that it's sourced. Anything larger than a stub needs to have at least some inline citations. Otherwise I'm going to just reduce the article to a single sentance dicdef stub and then ask that additional additions be cited as is my right. ] 21:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:53, 1 March 2023
merge to List of fetishes?
I wish to merge this article with the list of uncommon fetishes, this a stub and not be notable; any objections.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 20:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- I am opposed to such a merge. Why would combining this into a larger list article make any more sense? Unless the various articles in such lists are deeply interdependent, they should be split into multiple articles. Also, what do you mean by not notable? Uniform fetishism is a common occurrence. --Eyrian 20:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's also a stub
with no sources. My mistake, it does have a source.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 20:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)- Just because it's a stub doesn't mean it should be dropped into a big list. --Eyrian 21:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- oppose merge. Chris 05:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Just because it's a stub doesn't mean it should be dropped into a big list. --Eyrian 21:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's also a stub
This article stands quite well on its own. Is there any reason to merge other than to justify having a List of fetishes?--Taxwoman 20:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is referenced
The article, before it was converted to a redirect without any discussion, had two references. Were there any points in the article not covered by these references? If so, they should be properly flagged.--Taxwoman 21:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not quite. The article had a single external link to a gay uniform fetish website and an ambiguous ref to the "The Visual Dictionary of Sex". You can't ref a sex dictionary and then just write an entire article on the subject saying that it's sourced. Anything larger than a stub needs to have at least some inline citations. Otherwise I'm going to just reduce the article to a single sentance dicdef stub and then ask that additional additions be cited as is my right. NeoFreak 21:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)