Wikipedia talk:"In popular culture" content
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the "In popular culture" content page.|
|Threads older than 60 days may be archived by.|
Would someone who thinks that WP:IINFO should be referenced anywhere at all in this essay please provide a plausible argument based on the content of what it actually says in that policy section?
- "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources" seems quite applicable to the content discussed in this essay, as does most of the CRUFT essay. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Because your overly strict, word-for-word reading of is not the consensus viewpoint on Wikipedia. This has been demonstrated many times on many different discussion pages. You go in guns ablazing over WP:IINFO with the narrowest of interpretations and most other editors just do not agree with you. WP:IINFO is not meant to be interpreted literally as a prohibition against three specific things. So please, stop getting your feathers ruffled everytime somebody challenges you on this, because there are a lot of editors who do not agree with you, and your reading does not have the backing of a consensus on here. You are fine to have your own view point, but please do not make the mistake of thinking that this is how the policy is administered.
- Most editors view IINFO as a generic prohibition against unencyclopedic fluff. It can and should be mentioned within this essay because it is one of the key policy tools editors have at removing useless junk lists of culturecruft of this variety. The policy is appropriate to cite and highly relevant to this topic. It should most certainly be referenced within this article. ThemFromSpace 22:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- If what you say is true, then seek to have it changed. You've been railing against what the policy actually says for... how long now? And yet, you pretend the introduction to the three very specific cases is normative, when it was never developed that way. We've been over this ground again, and again, and again... yet you want the policy to mean what you think it means, without any actual change to align what it says (which matches what *I* believe it means) with what you think it means. Jclemens (talk) 01:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
If anyone has any thoughts to offer on Talk:List of Magical Negro occurrences in fiction#One source is sufficient.3F I'd appreciate hearing them. I'm concerned that for this kind of list it may be appropriate to have more than one citation per entry. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Replied there. Short answer: you're wrong. Jclemens (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see how a person could be right or wrong simply for having a concern, nor do I see how adding that here was intended to be productive, but thanks for your reply. DonIago (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Removing "notable" from this page
Notable and non-notable are being used on this page in several places to reference article content, rather than entire articles. I propose these be rewritten to something else, like "encyclopedic", to avoid confusion with WP:N, which only applies to the question of whether a topic deserves its own article. Any objections? Jclemens (talk) 07:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Agree that the term is confusing and should be switched out, as the real-world meaning of notability and WP:Notability are two different things. I edited the page to remove the confusion. Feel free to change this if you don't like my word choice. ThemFromSpace 19:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
It would be helpful for this page to have some guidance on a common pattern of "in popular culture" usage, which is to detail works of fiction in various media which use an article subject as a plot background. For example, the article on the 1918 flu pandemic details some novels, movies and television dramas that use the pandemic in their plots.