User talk:Mattlantis

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Mattblaha, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Reply[edit]

First, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by using ~~~~ at the end of your comments. Second, when adding material, we usually follow a Bold/Revert/Discuss process; you were bold (added content), you were reverted, now the next step is to finish discussing before re-adding the material (this is part of the fundamental pillar of WP:CONSENSUS). Third, to answer your question, the material you added was opinion and even if sourced to the show, you would be relying on a WP:PRIMARY source, which is not the preferred type of source. A Primary Source is good for making simple statements of fact about things; drawing conclusions about things is generally not allowed. Fourth, to answer your question about what a good edit would look like, you would need a reliable 3rd party source that does the drawing of the conclusions. DP76764 (Talk) 00:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better?[edit]

Apologies for my lacking wikipedia etiquette, as this is my first edit, but why are sentences preceding my edit like "One of the supporting characters from Frisky Dingo, Mr. Ford, makes a cameo appearance in "Drift Problem", the seventh episode of Season 3 of Archer, repeating one of his Frisky Dingo catchphrases ("My ass is everywhere.")." OK with no citation? If there's no relative or opinion language, if it were worded more simply as "In the episode "Midnight Ron," Archer says "Awww, Fat Mike too?" and the same line is spoken by Xander Crews in "Meet Awesome-X" in Frisky Dingo." I agree that would be better, but worded it as I did to match the style of surrounding edits, which I see you also removed this time.

I understand the need for sources, but as the policy about sources you linked to says "The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged."

My understanding of this policy is that easily verifiable, unlikely to be challenged things don't need explicit sources, but may still be relevant to the article. For example, does every line in the section that lists a shows characters need a reference to a third party agreeing they exist, or is the fact that their presence can be verified by watching the show enough?

It seems to me the source clearly exists (the primary source, the referenced episodes, satisfying verifiability) and is even mentioned. Any reasonable person who watches the two explicitly mentioned episodes is not going to challenge the similarity, so an explicit reference to secondary sources agreeing it happens is not necessary. Now while there is technically a quotation in the edit, I don't think it's the sort of quotation this rule is concerned with. This, and the other items you removed, don't need explicit citations because they are easily verified with the information provided, and a who watches the mentioned episode would want to challenge them.

Mattblaha (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the section that is unsouced is an example of how things creep into Wikipedia because articles are not monitored uniformly and that's why I removed them. They're also bordering on the verge of triviality, which would be another reason to remove them as well. Even if they are plainly verifiable, not every detail in existence needs to be (nor should be) documented here; take a look at WP:NOT to find out what the site is not about.

Also, in your rebuttal, you discussed the aspect of 'unlikely to be challenged things': clearly my edits are a challenge! I understand that these things exist but take issue with their relevance and notoriety, thus my removal. The next step should be to open a discussion on the talk page of the article to establish a WP:CONSENSUS opinion on whether these things are notable enough for inclusion. DP76764 (Talk) 04:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that not every detail needs to go into an article, but these references are not trivial. I mean callbacks to single lines made years before may arguably be trivial, but they are a distinct part of the subject of the article.

I really don't mean to be snarky, but have you watched the episodes mentioned? In my rebuttal I said any reasonable person who watches the episodes mentioned wouldn't likely challenge it. The similarity is obviously an example of an intentional callback. Further, it's clearly relevant to the article, at least to the section of the article, as it's a list of such callbacks. Unless that section should go entirely, I have trouble seeing how it's not obviously relevant.

Regrettably, I will not be opening a talk page as you mentioned, simply because I do not have an unlimited amount of time to dedicate to a single sentence on Wikipedia. Mattblaha (talk) 04:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not challenging that these things exist, I'm challenging that they're notable enough for inclusion in the article. Yes, I'm skeptical of the entire section (there are a lot of sections on this site that are similar and mostly they just invite people to add trivia), but some of it is sourced to reliable sources so I'm less inclined to challenge those parts. But hey, talk page discussions don't really take much time, all you have to do is start a section requesting input and wait a few days. There have been a few editors on the page recently, I'm sure you'd get a timely response or two. DP76764 (Talk) 15:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]