User talk:Ehtech2000

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Ehtech2000, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 17:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patchwork Man

Hi Ehtech2000, I saw your edit at User talk:Drmies and maybe I can make things a bit clearer. This was your edit. Thank you for trying to add a data point to the article. The problem with it was that it was based only on your observation, which is why Drmies used the word "unverified". Since this is an encyclopedia, we try to have everything be supported by a reference to a reliable source, like a book, a newspaper article, or an online review (but not a forum). This is one of our major principles, verifiability; it's so that the reader can check (or read more). The show itself can't be used to verify the information, which is also a way to guard against the articles becoming bloated with too many examples or illustrations—think about how many shows are broadcast and streamed every day, all over the world, and you'll see the point. So if you can find someone else making that point about the plot point in the Netflix series (maybe in a review published next day), you could try putting it back, with the review cited inside <ref></ref> tags.

You did pretty well using the talk page, but Drmies gets a lot of messages, so a better heading would be something like what I just used here, rather than your name. And new messages on Wikipedia talk pages go at the bottom, not the top; I've "pinged" Drmies here because he may not even have noticed the new messages by you and someone else at the top of his talk page.

Yes, it can be complicated getting started here. I hope I've helped a bit. I'm not always around, but feel free to ask me a question on my talk page and I'll help if I can once I see it; Strdst_grl says something similar at the end of the welcome message above, but that was a while ago and I'm not sure whether they're still active. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yngvadottir for that excellent explanation and the links: I will spend some time reviewing them! I understand now that 1) new messages go at the bottom of a talk page, 2) that I should use a header with the name of the article in the title on new talk posts or responses, and 3) that even though I had an experience, it needs to be corroborated by at least one other source. I will see if I can find such sources. If not, I may be the first to write about it on my blog (erichepperle.com/blog), though I realize I wouldn't be able to source my blog as a reference, due to conflict-of-interest, probably. I appreciate your offer to help this newbie and may be reaching out to you in the future! :) -- Ehtech2000 (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good summary. Chiming in to say I didn't revert you, Drmies reverted to the version I last edited. Hope this clears things up. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jtalledo: Yes, that does indeed make things clearer! Thank you. -- Ehtech2000 (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Yngvadottir. Ehtech, what I saw was basically "this character may be similar to that one"--that's not much. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies: Thanks for your comment, though I don't really understand it; I don't know what is wrong with saying something is similar, though I was more indicated that one might be closely inspired by the other. What I was attempting to do was to add an "In Popular Culture" section -- which by definition is not something that is the same, but references to ideas in a particular zeitgeist or cultural body of entertainment and literature. I know I've seen this type of section before, though I can't think of any Wikipedia articles to demonstrate it. Some examples though -- to make sure I'm being clear on what I'm trying to accomplish -- would be on a page about Back to the Future, one of the listings in the References in Popular Culture section would be Rick and Morty. Another example would be for the Like a Virgin (song) page, one listing in the popular culture refs section would be Like a Surgeon ("Weird Al" Yankovic song). Like I said, I've seen 'references in popular culture' sections on other articles in the past, and it seemed like a helpful section. Have times changed such that those used to exist commonly, but now they are frowned upon? I appreciate your helping me to learn and having patience with this noob editor. -- Ehtech2000 (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this is one of those areas where using an existing article as an example is not the best way to start. MOS:POPCULT has more. MPS1992 (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, MPS1992. The MOS:POPCULT link was very helpful! From it I learned:

   * YES, these "In popular culture" and "Cultural references" sections do indeed exist all over Wikipedia
   * Though a popular construction, they are frowned upon because they attract "trivia", which is unwanted on Wikipedia and would be more appropriate on sites like Wikia
   * I should not try to remove these sections when I encounter them, as "If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all."^[1]
   * One should avoid creating these sections in new articles

-- Ehtech2000 (talk) 09:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like A Surgeon is a parody of Like A Virgin, and verifiably so. It's pretty obvious and direct. In your case, you have a "patchwork man" (are these your own words? your own interpretation? there is no source for it if it is a citation) in a flashback in a TV show. There is in fact no evidence (since there is no citation to a secondary source like this) that it is a reference. It might be an allusion, but that also isn't verified. The one might be inspired by the other, but etc. In other words, "Popular reference" is already unproven, and even if there was a source of sorts, any experienced editor would want that sourcing to be strong in order to include it. I mean, there are popular references and mentions of popular things all over the place, and they don't all matter--not to mention that this Patchwork Man of the article is really references only by one single secondary source, so if the original thing is only barely notable, then an as yet unproven allusion to it is even less noteworthy. If we were to include all these kinds of "references", verified or not, we would be Wikia, really. There is more here, Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content, and here, Wikipedia:Trivial mentions. Such sections are simply frequently problematic. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Drmies for taking time to clarify your previous comment for me. This really is helpful. Based on the insight you offered, I researched and found [this] article on Vulture.com, ( New York Magazine's pop culture arm). It addresses the following:

       * Verifies that "Patchwork Man" is a character in Altered Carbon (TV series)
       * The source is a world-wide news magazine founded in the 1960's, as opposed to coming from Bill Johnson's blog of stuff he likes to talk about.

Here is the relevant quote:

"We open with a flashback to a young Takeshi Kovacs with his sister, reading a story that’s basically a riff on Frankenstein. A villain named Mad Mikola stole children and cut them up, turning them into a creature called the Patchwork Man, which then killed his creator, wandering the streets looking for new bodies to keep himself from falling apart. Who is the Patchwork Man of this story? Is it Kovacs himself, a medical marvel who has little more than his memories to hold onto?"

So, I believe I have demonstrated that the TV series Altered Carbon does indeed reference a character called "the Patchwork Man", and that the source is verifiable and credible. However, that is the only source I can find. Also, there is no direct statement indicating that it is derived or inspiried by the DC Comics Patchwork Man character. Ultimately, I'm not sure it meets the criteria for "notability", and based on everyone's advice so far, I'm thinking that though this information is useful, it is not that popular, would qualify more as trivia, and therefore would belong better somewhere else.

Curious on what course of action you all would recommend in this case? Drmies, MPS1992, Yngvadottir, Jtalledo, etc.

Thanks again for your help!

-- Ehtech2000 (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that on Wikipedia, notability is primarily used as a criterion to decide if there should be a separate article about a topic. Not if an article about a topic that is notable should include a particular point of information (which would not in itself require a separate article). So the essay in Drmies' second link is not really relevant to the question we're discussing here.

It's also worth being aware of the significant distinction between a WP:ESSAY and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. MPS1992 (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents from work, where I am stuck pulling overtime ... you have a reference to the plot point, but what you would need is someone (in a reliable source, which could include the pop culture arm of a magazine site, or one of the sanctioned blogs associated with a newspaper; but not a forum, as I said above, and not a personal blog, as someone else says below) saying that the character is derived from the comic-book character. Or even that the critic thinks it's an interesting accidental echo. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Yngvadottir. In this case, I do not have any sources that make the connection I have made. And I understand now that my own opinion/observation isn't something that would be considered verifiable. In fact, to the contrary, it might be classed as a sort of UPG. Thus, I have decided based on the advice of you helpful learned wiki-editors that this bit of information -- though important in one sense -- doesn't fit the criteria for something to publish on Wikipedia. I am, however, considering publishing it on my own wiki. -- Ehtech2000 (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

blogs

Just an extra note regarding something you said above. On Wikipedia, blogs are not normally considered reliable sources. There are some exceptions, for example mentioned at WP:NEWSBLOG. MPS1992 (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha User:MPS1992! I didn't know that, but I'm not surprised. I'll check out that reliable sources link to learn more. Thanks again. -- Ehtech2000 (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism Conquered

Hi: I thought you might like to know that I fixed up this article that you created way back when. The information and reference you gave had been replaced by copyright-violating stuff from a good source: I rewrote it using both. Hope you give us more articles now that you're back editing :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Yngvadottir! The article is looking good, and I appreciate the encouragement. I've been writing and edition for myself and friends and family for years, but only recently have I really started to acknowledge my skills as writer and editor/proofreader. As such, I find myself currently a journalist, writing both features and actual news, for a local small-town USA newspaper -- The Geneva County Reaper --, building WordPress websites, including theme customization, and working on the framework of my personal website, EricHepperle.com. All of this involves writing and editing on a daily basis. I am seeing that this "in the fire", "do-or-die" kind of immersion in the craft and business of writing and editing is helping me hone my skills at a tremendous rate. I am looking forward to contributing more articles when I can find the time :) -- Ehtech2000 (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^ MOS:POPCULT#What_this_guideline_is_not

[1] MOS:POPCULT#What_this_guideline_is_not

[1]