Open main menu
        Instead of doing something useful,
You have been staring at this page since 13:07 Saturday, September 21, 2019 UTC.

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

What it wikipedia's policy on instantiating or subclassing topics? How exhaustively should any topic be subdivided or qualified? I ask because I recently came accross Straw Feminism which seemed to me to be trivial instantiation of a straw man, wherein the article provides no useful additional information- but is apparently marked as "keep". If anything it should perhaps be moved to wiktionary. It is apparently sufficiently notable because some people have used it in articles, but then should we not instantiate every straw man in any law, fiction, or philosophy?

Hi, Ethanpet113, welcome to Wikipedia. The page at Wikipedia:Splitting gives some general guidelines about when it might be appropriate to split a topic off from a main article. In the case of Straw Feminism, the article was nominated for deletion last year, and kept after discussion. Those who argued for keeping the page said that topic was worthy of a standalone article because sources have talked about "Straw Feminism" in depth, as more than just an example of the "straw man" fallacy. That's the key part on Wikipedia: has the subject received enough coverage in reliable, independent sources to justify a stand-alone article? In this case, the consensus was yes. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!Edit

Hi Ethanpet113! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 05:36, Monday, November 20, 2017 (UTC)


LGBT, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sputnik 1Edit

The article Sputnik 1 you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Sputnik 1 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve London fog (beverage)Edit

Hello, Ethanpet113,

Thanks for creating London fog (beverage)! I edit here too, under the username Girth Summit and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Google throws up quite a lot of hits for this - it would be good to get some properly independent sources (the current one is from a tea manufacturer, so not ideal), and expand the content to give some of the history etc.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Girth Summit}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

GirthSummit (blether) 15:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Ethanpet113".