| Revision as of 21:38, 24 February 2007 editEyrian (talk | contribs)10,448 edits →merge to []?: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:00, 25 February 2007 edit undoKintetsubuffalo (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers203,496 edits →merge to []?Next edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| ::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) | ::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) | :::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) | |||
Revision as of 05:00, 25 February 2007
merge to List of uncommon 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