Misplaced Pages

Talk:Uniform fetish: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:14, 6 April 2007 editTaxwoman (talk | contribs)895 edits This article is referenced← Previous edit Revision as of 21:23, 6 April 2007 edit undoNeoFreak (talk | contribs)3,402 edits →This article is referenced: not quiteNext edit →
Line 13: Line 13:


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) 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)

Revision as of 21:23, 6 April 2007

WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality Redirect‑class
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
RedirectThis redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

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)

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)
Categories: