Miscellaneous desk
< January 11	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 13 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 12[edit]

Are asexual or aromantic people sometimes people who hate dating[edit]

Does anyone think I might be asexual or aromatic due to the fact I never at all want to date anyone even though I'm attracted to men? If someone asks me out in the future I will say no, and would rather be friends. I'm just curious about what counts to be considered asexual or aromantic. 2001:569:5262:A00:883F:7E4C:58E1:C6FA (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read our articles on Asexuality and Aromanticism and decide for yourself.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) – We have an article Asexuality, which gives two different senses of the term: (1) lack of sexual attraction to others; (2) low or absent interest in or desire for sexual activity. I find either definition unsatisfactory; if a person has sexual fantasies, that established (IMO) that they are a sexual being – yet they can still not be sexually attracted to others in real life and have no desire for their fantasies to become reality. See also the article Gray asexuality – it is a spectrum without clear boundaries.

Although dating customs vary across cultures, engaging in dating always involves to some extent being assessed for suitability as a mate, and people may find the inherent scrutiny, the idea of being judged, so disagreeable that it already turns them off before romantic interest can develop. Rejection sensitivity may also play a role. The concept of Romantic attraction is also vague – in some definitions it is the same as limerence, in other definitions having warm feelings for someone and a desire to bond with them is enough. --Lambiam 09:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Walsh Early life[edit]

Ive been working on a draft of a article, and i submitted it for a review. I got a comment saying i need sources in his early life section. While i understand if some of the claims arent verifiable, i cant even find birth date from a secondary source. (talk) 07:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Matt Walsh (pundit) – not this Matt Walsh. We cannot report statements without reliable sources supporting them. Is this meant to be a request for finding such sources? --Lambiam 10:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I mean. I cant find any sources on anything on this guy. I understand if claims cant be supported but i cant even find a birthdate source. My apologies for the lack of link, new to editing (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then there isn't going to be an article. It's really not that complicated; not everything that exists in the universe meets the minimum standards for having a Wikipedia article about it. In order to merit a stand-alone article, something needs sufficient reliable source material to have already been written about it. If that source material doesn't exist, then there's nothing to use to help research and write a Wikipedia article, and the Wikipedia article probably shouldn't exist. --Jayron 32 20:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain the subject is notable, but the noted lack of sources concerns only his personal life, including his early life. The draft has many references to what we consider reliable sources, but these pertain to the subject's public persona. --Lambiam 22:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed: it's not mandatory for an article to include such details; they are, after all, not what makes a subject notable. If they cannot be sourced, they should, as one commenter has said, be removed.

However, LuNaCy, I am concerned that the current Early life section, despite having no references, nevertheless contains a number of details that would likely be known only to the subject – who, it is stated, "tries to keep his personal life private" – or to someone close to him who would have a Conflict of interest, unless he or they have published them in some way. Where did these details come from? Published sources that are not considered sufficiently independent of the subject as to contribute to Notability might nevertheless be acceptable as sources of minor facts, but they do need to be cited.

I must say that the statement "Matt was born . . . to his parents" made me smile, but I understand that it is probably intended as a placeholder pending the discovery of further details. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.195.175.103 (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I adopted the article as someone stopped editing it, and it was postponed deletion. Whoever started the article was incredibly bias towards Walsh. This is my first significant contribution, and as you can see im struggling. Thank you for the advice, I will edit the article more and fix these errors. (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LuNaCy This appears to be a duplication of the mainspace article Matt Walsh (political commentator).Naraht (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created first, but yes i did add information from thier, but not much. (mostly cause i thought i could merge them but i cant merge a real and a not real article) but compare the may 4th 2021 to thier article creation one, the draft im working on already existed with most current information. (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Espieccly given its about the same topic, information will overlap as its just facts. (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So if you have encyclopedic information that can be sourced and is missing from the existing mainspace article, just add it there. In no way will two separate articles on this person be acceptable. --Lambiam 16:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had started working on the article before the new mainspace one was created. I was not aware of this one until the post. After I had already submitted it, and asked this question (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and I shall be moving the info over soon, as it would make things easier. (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cat fountain?[edit]

What is a cat fountain? Thanks. 86.188.121.70 (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A pet supply for domestic cats that dispenses water; see these images.

On the other hand, This work of art is called the "dog fountain". "Cat fountain" could obviously be the name of a similar work with cats insread of the dogs (or to be exact, instead of the dogs and one cat), if it existed. --184.144.97.125 (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How amazing. Does not have it's own article yet? But you know what always happens later.... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See the "what links here". The fountain doesn't, but the park does. --184.144.97.125 (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So it seems it was designed by Claude Cormier, but the article is not 100% clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This newspaper story linked from the article says Cormier's firm designed the fountain. --184.144.97.125 (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]