Wikipedia talk:"In popular culture" content

Cycles

The essay doesn't address the phenomenon of cycles within articles:

Editor Newbie1 adds pop culture reference X
Editor Vet1 removes reference X
Editor Newbie2 adds pop culture reference X
Editor Vet2 removes reference X

..and so on.

It is the exact same cycle as the AfD cycle, just on a smaller scale within an article. The essay suggests that the "solution" to the AfD cycle is to "keep stuff out of the article", but that is just recommending the cycle outlined above. Either way it is a cycle, it's not a solution to the problem of "in popular culture". -- Stbalbach 18:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do think that dealing with trivia in the article is nontrivial, and there is the potential for this kind of cycle to come up. But that cycle is not equally bad compared to the AfD cycle for a few reasons. First, no AfDs are involved. Second, at least the trivia section is being closely monitored that way. Third, it's more likely that facts with the potential to be integrated will actually be integrated, than if those facts are put in a forked out trivia article. Perhaps we can refer to Wikipedia:Trivia#Recommendations for handling trivia? Mango juice^talk 19:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derivatives vs Adaptations & List vs Prose

Could the problem of in-pop-cult be examined from the perspective of derivative versus adaptation? A derivative is when a piece of an original work is used in a new work - such as a character, or story element, or names - but it is not the primary element of the new work. An adaptation is where the original work is a "remake", keeping much of the original work intact. There is some gray area between what is a derivative and what is an adaptation, but it quickly cuts out a lot of cruft like minor TV, video game, movie and song references.

A proposed guideline would say that lists of adaptations are acceptable, but lists of derivatives are not, since they are indiscriminate trivia. Derivatives can be included in an article but only in prose format showing a connection between the original and new work, and a description of why the derivative is notable, more than just the fact that it exists.

Thoughts or ideas on this approach? -- Stbalbach 22:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The terminology is a problem if you're formulating a general rule on popular culture sections, because not all subjects that pick up popular culture trivia are themselves works of art. It would be confusing to talk about adaptations vs. derivatives of dragonflies or of Rush.

Apart from that, it's an interesting approach. That more or less matches my idea of how these sections should be handled, but I'm a little leery of requiring a description of why something is notable. The notability should be discernible in some way, but I think it can be implicit; it doesn't have to be "X appeared in Y, which is notable because..." A few good examples may help. —Cel ithemis 23:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points, let me try to better define it:

For a general rule about "cultural lists":

List, cultural items in list format.
Prose, cultural items in prose format.
Derivative, a minor piece of a work referenced from an original piece - not an adaptation.
Adaptation, a re-make of an original work, a close version largely and clearly based on an original.

..thus:

	List	Prose
Derivative	Not allowed	Allowed
Adaptation	Allowed	Allowed

General non-artwork topics like animals, people or places are easy since they have no adaptations, it is all derivative, and thus have no "List", only "Prose". A positive example would be dragonflies and groundhogs, which have no List, but do have Prose. A negative example would be Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, it contains a List of Derivatives (ie. Not allowed).

Thoughts? -- Stbalbach 23:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting way to think about trivia, but I don't agree with your assessment about lists of derivative things being not allowed: I think it depends entirely on how discriminating the selection criteria are. Also, this may be more germane at Wikipedia talk:Trivia. (BTW, check out User:Mangojuice/Trivia for some of my own unrelated thoughts on trivia.) Mango juice^talk 00:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal would turn much of Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc into a bad example. I might be okay with deprecating the Music section of that article (some of the mentions in song lyrics are quite trivial) but is, say, the list of paintings really bad? Or the list of films about her? —Cel ithemis 00:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Celithemis here: that's the problem with categorically excluding one type of information. I think the Joan of Arc page makes for an exception because Joan of Arc was so historically significant... and I do see the possibility for making an article out of that information (although right now, it's mostly just notes). Mango juice^talk 14:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible

The "in popular culture" articles are all horrible, the "in popular culture" sections of articles are horrible, they're all useless collections of pointless trivia which have no place in an enyclopedia article. The only workable solution to this is to make an actual policy banning "list of trivial crap" sections in articles. We have thousands of articles which are good, high quality articles, but which then end with:

x in popular culture

x was mentioned in episode 548 of The Simpsons, when Homer walks across the living room, trips over x, and says, "D'oh!"
The rockabilly-punk trio Gooberhead, on their debut album "I love Goobers", did a song called Oogermuffer which mentions x.
In level 24 of the game Quake 4, behind the abandoned silo in a shed on the back wall can clearly be seen a poster of x.
"All your x is belong to us" is a popular meme on Fark.com.

98% of these found in any article are not even interesting, the remaining 2% might be mildly interesting but are not notable. Until we ban this crap outright, it will continue to spread, as the existence of all these In Popular Culture sections leads everyone to believe that these bulleted lists of trivia are acceptable and expected, and encourages anyone who can think of another example to go ahead and add it to the ever growing list. --Xyzzyplugh 18:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not all of them. Wikipedia in popular culture isn't too bad. But most of them are like you say. Mango juice^talk 20:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying they are horrible/uninteresting is subjective. I bet many people find them the most interesting part of any article. Inclusion is acceptable if verifiable/sourced and the reference is non-trivial in the pop culture work. These lists can also serve to establish the notability of neologisms and fictional objects. I disagree with turning this essay to reject all in pop culture sections; note that AfDs on these articles are done on a case-by-case basis. –Pomte 20:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a reference is non-trivial in the pop culture work, it belongs in the article for that work. It should be in the article for the thing or person referred to if it has some kind of importance to them. Sometimes it does, so I agree that a 100% ban would be a mistake.

Xyzzyplugh is not wrong, though -- with so many of these pop culture sections, we're creating a culture in which people think every single article needs one on principle. Case in point. —Cel ithemis 22:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If any editors feel that every single article deserves a pop culture section, then one of the goals of this essay should be to point out that that is not true. Still, the section can serve as a placeholder until the items are integrated into the rest of the article, each judged for its merits, instead of outright deleting all as "cruft".

In the example you gave I would argue that the Simpsons reference belongs in the Legacy section, that it is non-trivial because the scene isn't a mere happenstance, but an intentional characterization of Joyce. Incidentally I came across Culturally significant words and phrases from The Simpsons, of which the notability is asserted in The Simpsons#Cultural impact, so I think the article ought to exist. –Pomte 22:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a minor reference in one episode of a show that constantly makes references to all sorts of things. If you put it in Legacy it will be out of place; appearing unnamed on the Simpsons once is not a legacy. Any popular culture references that *really are* significant should be there, certainly.

I don't understand what Culturally significant words and phrases from The Simpsons has to do with this. No one doubts The Simpsons has had cultural impact. —Cel ithemis 22:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to the claim that many people find these the most interesting part of any article, this may be true. But we could add pornography pictures to all wikipedia articles, and many people would find these the most interesting part of any article. We could also add 200+ picture photo galleries to all articles on celebrities who have photos available, or video game walkthroughs to game articles, and many people would find these the most interesting part of wikipedia. "Some people find them interesting" is not an excuse to have non-encylopedic crap added to our articles. Special:Whatlinkshere/The_Simpsons shows that 8000 articles now link to The Simpsons (half of which are talk pages, of course).

As to the claim that these sections help establish notability of the article subject, this is almost never the case. I'd be surprised if 1% of these In Popular Culture sections and articles were being used for this purpose. Hitler in popular culture includes all nine times which Hitler was mentioned in The Simpsons. Without this, presumably, no one would know that Hitler was notable.

However, it would be reasonable to have an In Popular Culture section in some articles, but these sections should be like the rest of an article, actual paragraphs of prose, written in the same style as the rest of the article, sourced and encylopedic. An IPC section should discuss how a subject is viewed in popular culture, giving examples, not just be a long list of examples. There is a huge difference between the two. Any example given should only be used to make a point. An encylopedia article is a summary of what is known on a subject, not a place to dump quantities of raw data on a subject. These In Popular Culture sections and articles, as they exist today, are raw data dumps, and they don't belong. --Xyzzyplugh 00:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the ratio of notable vs. borderline-notable articles that contain IPC sections, but some IPC references do have the potential to assert notability, and requires consensus to do so. Example: Nozz-A-La, which was deleted at AfD 2 months ago. Recently the article was recreated, at which point I tagged it for WP:CSD#G4. It got denied with this reason: "reference to Lost was not in previous article". In this case, the pop culture reference did matter. On the other hand, your Hitler example has nothing to do with notability: Hitler already establishes Hitler's notability, which is required for Hitler in popular culture to even exist. The 9 Simpsons references do not increase notability, but they do present genuine facts of interest.

What does "encyclopedic" mean here? Worthy of belonging to this encyclopedia. People don't come to this encyclopedia expecting image galleries of everything because that is not its purpose, though there are exceptions e.g. Gallery of sovereign-state flags. Likewise, IPC information is sort of borderline. People who look up an encyclopedia expect to be presented with facts, not to make a certain point. An article doesn't always need to say that the subject has had a major impact on or presence in pop culture, especially if one cannot find reliable sources that explicitly say so. But, the article can always list IPC references because those are of the verifiable kind. While a synthesis of all the IPC items cannot be made, the list serves its purpose just fine.

If all IPC sections do ought to be converted from list to prose, then perhaps start a WikiProject to do just that. This is a tedious task though, and I prefer the list format due to ease of readability. Here is how I envision the prose: First sentence says something like "The subject has been mentioned several times in popular culture." Each subsequent paragraph will just be an item from the list, or else all the IPC sentences would be combined into big paragraphs sorted by media format. A featured list like Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc would appear counter-intuitive in that style.

In some other discussion, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz#Cultural impact had been given as an example a well-written section, but the last paragraph seems arbitrary to me. The reader cannot judge from this "mere sampling of the breadth" to know whether they really are some of the most important ones, or exactly how many other important works reference The Wizard of Oz.

Do you really think all IPC sections should be deleted on sight, or could they at least be moved to Talk pages until someone integrates them into paragraphs? –Pomte 05:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will slightly amend my previous statements on this. While I am still on the fence on this, as I question the wisdom of having an infinite number of lists on Wikipedia, it may be reasonable to have lists such as Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc. That is, for subjects which have had a strong influence on culture, with many paintings/books/tv shows/movies/etc. created on that topic, it may be reasonable to have an article listing them. Joan of Arc is a good example of this, as we can see many, many works of art about her stretching back for centuries, and into the present day. However, again, the IPC article on Joan of Arc should not be a data dump listing every known reference to Joan of Arc in every cultural product ever made. Famous paintings OF her, novels and movies and tv shows and songs ABOUT her would belong in such an article. A single line in an otherwise unrelated song, a brief walk-in on The Simpsons, a single panel about her in a marginally notable webcomic, none of these belong on the list. Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, despite being a featured list (and having become a featured list after a grand total of 4 people voted to make it one), is full of crap which doesn't belong, and needs dozens of these marginally notable items removed.

The purpose of an IPC article, then, would be to inform readers of the most notable of the various cultural products which exist, so that they could perhaps view them themselves, not to simply bring up some "interesting" trivia ("really? Some webcomic I never heard of once contained the line "Joan of Arc is a bitch"? how fascinating!) I am fine with such a list using bullet points, as if you're going to list dozens of seperate items, putting them into paragraph form wouldn't make for easy readability.

This doesn't mean that IPC sections of articles should contain a bulleted list, though. If a topic has not had enough impact on popular culture to deserve its own seperate IPC article, then there shouldn't be enough notable items to need a bulleted list, and they can go in paragraph form, if they belong in the article at all. If there were 100 movies, songs, and tv shows about Pringles, then we could reasonably have Pringles in popular culture. If, instead, some popular singer actually once wrote a song about Pringles, and there were Pringles in brief scenes in The Family Guy and The Simpsons, there would be no reason to have an IPC section with 3 bulleted points.--Xyzzyplugh 11:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these articles should not be data dumps, but then their inclusion criteria becomes hazy. Webcomics do not make notable references, but it's harder to tell with such say appearances in The Simpsons. A 3-second walk-in is probably non-notable, but what about a 2-minute segment that continously pokes fun at the subject? A 5-minute segment that provides non-trivial insight? What if the person themself does the voiceover, and this sparked documentable hype? Where do you draw the line? Where do you go from most notable to adequately notable to non-notable? The inclusion of such borderline references is up to debate, and there's not bound to be any consensus between the extremes of fans and deletionists. Of course, this sort of argument is best settled case-by-case on talk pages. I'm with you, but there are people trying to nominate every single list just because it contains both notable and non-notable IPC items, instead of cleaning it up, and then everyone is forced into the exact same argument again. –Pomte 04:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important Question

Why hasn't anyone made it an offical policy that trivial pop culture references don't belong in Wikipedia articles? The editors who want Wikipedia to be nothing more than a shrine to Family Guy are the ones who are keeping the entire Wikiproject from being taken seriously. --Wasted Sapience 20:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's almost obvious that any cultural reference in Family Guy is not worth mentioning in any article, because of the nature of that show. But to answer your question more directly, see Wikipedia:Trivia -- it's important to note that "trivial" is very subjective. Things everyone agrees are too trivial are generally "disallowed" in that they'll be removed, but there isn't much that is THAT trivial. Mango juice^talk 22:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Would say that pop culture has a useful place in any Wikipedia article. Curiosity about a cultural reference is often an entry point to the encyclopedia and thus into an interest in more serious topics. A reader then is drawn into the subject and soon finds himself or herself engaged in higher subjects. The sequence is as follows: (1) see a pop-cultural reference, (2) Google it, (3) see a Wikipedia google hit as the top entry, and (4) find oneself reading about, and interested in, a genuinely serious subject. Those who delete Wikipedia's pop-cultural references are preventing this cycle from occurring and are (perversely) excluding many thoughtful people who would otherwise be drawn into thinking about more important topics. (Analogy: A parent who says "why don't you look it up".) Falstaf 17:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, such radical fundamentalism .. I think people often get carried away and think only "high culture" is notable, I've done it myself, it's a certain snobbishness that favors "in pop culture" material from 1800, but rejects "in pop culture" material from its own day -- IMO by 2100AD, Wikipedia will be studied by scholars not for its article on George Washington (there are 100s of encyclopedia articles on GW, most better than Wikipedia's), but for its popular culture material, which exists no where else as a true and unique window into this historical period. Granted there is a lot of cruft, but don't be too quick to discount its value or legitimacy, be sure to examine your own biases and personal values objectivley. Also, IPC articles can and do turn into Featured Articles, they are a legitimate genre of article on Wikipedia. And who doesn't take WP seriously because of an article on Family Guy? -- Stbalbach 23:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are also people who don't take WP seriously because it takes itself too seriously, i.e. there are users out to delete the truly useful, interesting, citable/reliable information not easily found anywhere else. Usefulness is an argument to avoid, so here's one for notability: If the subject is notable for being parodied in popular culture, then a list of such parodies is notable. If the subject is notable, and the work it is referenced in is notable, then the relationship between them has its notability asserted. If the subject is questionably notable, but the work it is referenced in is notable, then that helps assert the subject's notability. As with the discussion above, these should be considered in a case-by-case basis. For Family Guy, it's probably better to list only the most significant references, the ones that have sparked controversy or media attention. But for obscure topics, it might be preferred to list the references just to help assert notability. –Pomte 04:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why hasn't anyone made it an official policy that trivial pop culture references don't belong in Wikipedia articles? Perhaps because that would be a dumb thing to do. Should Wiki be able to have articles on the Beatles, or Picasso, or Oprah Winfrey? Obviously yes. Should those articles be able to cross-reference to other pieces of pop culture information? Obviously yes. That disposes of everything in the sentence but the "triviality" clause. Now, in the context of those pop culture pages, who gets to decide what's trivial or not, other than people who know the cultural background, and who, almost by definition are likely to be enthusiasts?

There's also the problem of what we class as "pop culture": it would be slightly perverse for Wiki to make a distinction that allows trivia for "artworks" only if those works are obscure or relatively unpopular. And how do we make the distinction? What happens when some obscure piece suddenly becomes "popular" because it gets turned into a Hollywood movie? Do the novels of Jane Austen count as pop culture? Should a page on Percy Bysshe Shelley neglect to mention that he was married to the woman who wrote Frankenstein, just because later on Universal Studios decided to make a movie about it? Does that make it pop culture trivia?

The problem (if there is a problem), is that Wikipedia itself is a pop culture phenomenon, and the people who love Wiki and are keen to expand it to include further information that they know and which isn't already well documented, are more likely to be media junkies with a web of media cross-references in their heads that they feel would be nice to preserve as part of Wiki. They contribute information that they are expert on, and it's most likely that what they are expert on is going to be some aspect of the culture that they grew up with. Multimedia-keen hypertext-savvy internet enthusiasts tend to be enthusiastic about modern media. It tends to go with the territory. Those people tend to outnumber experts in less popular fields because ... those fields are less popular. Perhaps we should be encouraging experts on more obscure subjects to write for Wiki, but I know that one of the reasons why those people are discouraged is because some of the same "deletist" editors who take pride in going through Wiki pages deleting pop culture references also take pride in running through those obscure pages deleting information from them on the grounds that it's deemed by them to be too obscure and insufficiently interesting. If you are an expert on the construction and maintenance of antique grand pianos, and decide to pour your heart into a detailed article on the subject, some ****ing deletist **** with an overgrown sense of self-importance is liable to come along delete the whole thing as part of their quest to "improve" Wiki. A nd if it's an obscure topic, it might not survive a votes for deletion, and most of the people who would love the article may never see it. If we delete all the information that someone somewhere considers too popular, and all the information that someone else might consider not popular enough, then we're just going to end up with a clone of Encarta.

This is another reason why "pop culture" pages do so well: They're the ones that survive deletion votes or get reinstated or rewritten afterwards. They get a sufficient number of enthusiastic and knowledgeable regular readers who can spot and repair damage caused by the deletists. The pages that aren't so resilient are the less popular ones, where an author who gets their work hacked down by some ignorant klutz of an editor gets dispirited and doesn't come back, and nobody with equivalent knowledge steps in to replace them. So, ironically, if Wikipedia is dumbing down, I think that some of the people who are most responsible are the deletists ... who also tend to be the people who complain loudest about dumbing down. Wiki has only become this popular because of people prepared to spend time contributing. Contributing information and rephrasing existing pages takes work and care, whereas any idiot can highlight and delete. Deletion is the "instant gratification" approach, it lets people change Wikipedia and see the results of what they've done without having to apply any proper thought, or have any proper background knowledge of the subject they are editing. Don't like = delete. Don't recognise = delete. Not interested = delete. If you are an active editor, and you delete more than you add, then I'm afraid you are probably one of the bad guys. ErkDemon 22:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

A reference to Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc in the essay might be a good idea (since it's an ~~FA~~). If it ever turns into a poor article it can be removed from the essay. A good example always helps. Quadzilla99 19:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)~~~~ [reply]

~~Of course I just noticed it uses IMDb as a source... Quadzilla99 19:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Good idea, there are a number of well done IPC articles on Wikipedia. We need MoS page that shows how to do it correctly. Rather than fight it, work with it -- there is a lot of energy going into these types of articles, for better or worse many people want them, like it or not - that energy should be directed in a positive manner -- who wants to spend their life deleting IPC articles? or spend a few weeks telling people how to do it correctly and move on. -- Stbalbach 14:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I said that incorrectly it's an FL I meant a featured list, the pop culture articles should follow the criteria for featured lists, of which the Joan of Arc list is an FL. Quadzilla99 15:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a sentiment that IPC articles shouldn't be lists, but articles with well-written prose. Personally though lists are much more realistic and easy to read. Note also that Joan of Arc became an FL with only 3 support !votes last year. –Pomte 15:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying it's not any good? I'm not catching the meaning of that last sentence. Quadzilla99 16:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's an objection to the featured status that I've seen a couple of times. I agree it's a good idea to list lists like that as examples of good ones. –Pomte 17:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why List of cultural references in The Cantos was removed from the list of examples, but I was hoping this essay could talk about "Cultural references in X" in addition to "Cultural references to X." It raises the question of how to manage duplicate content between the referencer and the referencee: if X is notable for having cultural references to other things, then should the articles of those other things mention such references as well? –Pomte 12:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the "cultural depictions of Joan of Arc" example, as it's not, strictly speaking, an X in popular culture article. It would be good to have examples to show that these can be done well, in which case I wouldn't mind the Joan of Arc example being put back in, but we really should find a good article that is "X in popular culture". Perhaps Wikipedia in popular culture? Mango juice^talk 18:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean because the name of the article is not "in popular culture"? Otherwise, that is exactly what the Joan of Arc article is, except in name only. It's more than appropriate to show it as a positive example of how to create these kinds of articles, there is no rule that they have to be named "IPC", that is just an informal name that people use, but people will use other names as well, it's all conceptually the same thing. I'll even create a re-direct if it will help. -- Stbalbach 18:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid POV I wouldn't insert any article until it becomes recognized as a FL. Quadzilla99 19:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow what FL/FA has to do with POV. Are the articles listed POV or in some way breaking the rules of Wikipedia? If so they should be put up for AfD. Becoming FA/FL is a rare thing indeed, holding editors to "FA/FL or death" is an unreasonable position. -- Stbalbach 19:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, conceptually, "Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc" is different from "Joan of Arc in popular culture." VERY different. It's limited to depictions, not all mentions, influences, and so on, and it's abot all culture, not just popular culture. It's one thing to have "Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc" as an example decent article (which I agree with), it's another to say that "X in popular culture" articles can be good, and use that as an example, which I don't. Since the latter seems to be the point, we need to find a better example. Mango juice^talk 20:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a nuanced distinction that does not exist. "In popular culture" is a loose term that can mean just about anything, depending on who is using the term. There is no standard or guideline. I understand what your saying, but people who make these types of articles need guidance and the Joan article provides that guidance, even if its not *exactly* what a particular vision of a IPC "should" be - besides, what "should" a IPC include and not include? Should IPC articles *only* be "popular culture", and what is "popular culture"? Should there by IPC articles at all? These are all unsettled questions. Clearly though the Joan article is in the same category and its style and layout provides help for users, regardless of any selection criteria. -- Stbalbach 20:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should be looking for more examples of what to emulate. My objection was only, really, to the idea that the Joan of Arc article would be our only or main example, since there are distinctions. BTW, why was "List of important operas" on there? Mango juice^talk 20:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed Wikipedia in Popular Culture as it wasn't rated in any way. Even though this isn't official I think it would be best to stick to recognized content. Feel free to comment and we can reach a consensus. Quadzilla99 23:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Opera article~~
The opera article is important for two reasons: 1) it shows how to stylistically format a list of cultural references with citations and ordered chronologically and 2) it shows how to limit the selection by using reliable and verifiable "lists of lists" - it teaches users how to solve the "indiscriminate list" problem - how to create a meaningful and useful list of cultural references using other peoples "verifiable and reliable" lists. This solves a lot of problems in a lot of articles that needs to be done more often. It's a very important article and somewhat groundbreaking (not sure its the first of its type, first I have seen and only FL I know of). It really needs to be included and given more attention. -- Stbalbach 20:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's totally irrelevant. That's a featured list, sure, but it's not anything like a list of cultural references, it's simply a list of significant operas. And it's not a list of trivia: it's not a list of facts at all, it's really a list of topics. Besides, I don't think we should be encouraging people to think of these pop culture articles as inherently list-like. We do already link to Wikipedia:Trivia, which gives a lot of guidance on what to do with trivia. And the more I think about it, this whole section we're talking about is just wishful thinking: it never really happens, and we should not describe the situation as if there is generally hope for these articles. Generally, there is no hope, but occasionally, someone makes the effort. Rarely. Mango juice^talk 22:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're useful as lists for convenience sake. We should encourage the lead-in to be a paragraph that talks about why the subject is important IPC, but the rest of the content can rightly be in the form of a list (there's a discussion above about this). It's wishful thinking that most stubs will expand, but we don't give those up. We should encourage all keep !voters to make the effort. I know I will. –Pomte 14:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~A vote of confidence~~
~~Regarding the usefulness of IPC articles, this was a comment by an anon in a recent IPC AfD:~~
i found the references on the jack kerouac page very useful when i wrote my dissertation on him[1]
~~-- Stbalbach 16:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Wow. I hope this person confirmed all the unsourced material before trying to earn a degree with it. But anyway, we all know that lots of information is WP:USEFUL that isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. Mango juice^talk 17:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure they did verify it themselves. For many people, Wikipedia is a first step for info about a topic to enable probing further into it. Some delete !votes call them useless, which is just another opinion. –Pomte 14:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Limitation of essay~~
I'm not sure why this essay has to be limited to a single point. There is a lot to be said about IPC articles and the title of this essay is general, it is not called "Forking in popular culture article". This essay is used all the time in AfD discussions per "what links here" by a bunch of people, it is becoming well known and used. Although it may have been started by one user in order to make one point, do we have to limit it to that single users vision? I would hate to "fork" additional essays about IPC articles and have a "battle of essay links" in AfD discussions. Should we have an "anti" IPC essay and a "pro" IPC essay, or have all views considered in the same place? -- Stbalbach 03:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this essay is going to be only about forking, then it should be renamed to reflect that, because as it is, it looks like a general essay about IPC articles, which apparently is not the case. Either we need to open this essay up to a general discussion of IPC articles, or rename it to something more specific reflecting the "nutshell" point. -- Stbalbach 04:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We may be able to work together here. I think we agree that forking and abandoning an unwanted section of an article is a bad thing. But it's really the combining of those two that's the problem: forking alone can be perfectly fine, if the fork will be not only maintained but improved into a good stand-alone article. Abandoning an article is always problematic, but much more than usual when the abandoned article gets a lot of contributions. One solution to an abandoned article is deletion, but another is adoption and improvement. But we have to word that carefully, because while actual adoption is a good option, merely hoping for adoption is a very bad option, because it almost never happens. Mango juice^talk 13:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SUMMARY, it is necessary to split off sections into subarticles; popular culture sections are no exception. For very large articles and topics, popular culture subarticles may be a necessity. Like the main Joan of Arc article, the Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc subarticle has also attained quality. We now have featured topics which are a set of articles for particular topics than have overall good or featured quality. I see the pop culture articles as part of a "topic" and hope that they attain quality, along with the parent articles. Now, I know we have a large number of pop culture articles that are anything but quality. I think the quality of the pop culture articles often reflect the quality or progression of the parent article. Say Walt Whitman which is only a B-class article, and it's pop culture subarticle isn't great either. When someone comes along and makes Walt Whitman into a featured article, the pop culture subarticle should also improve. --Aude (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mangojuice, I'm not sure what "abandoned article" means in the context of Wikipedia. Assuming Wikipedia is a life-time project, there is no finished version of wikipedia or time limit, just because an article is poor quality in 2007 doesn't mean someone might come along in 2015 and fix it up. There is no completeness, Wikipedia is an eternal work in progress, always in flux and changing. We have a small core of active editors on any given day, and millions of articles, the math is clear, most articles just don't get attention, but since time is the factor which we have unlimited amounts of, it doesn't matter, we can wait until someone gets around to it. Every IPC article has some fan base out there just waiting for the right person at the right time to come in and fix it up. -- Stbalbach 04:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a really extreme form of Wikipedia:Eventualism you're endorsing. I posit that no one will ever take a serious effort to expand most of these articles, because they are on topics that aren't important at all. The truth is, for instance, Mir is just not important to popular culture, and popular culture is not important to Mir, so no one will ever be interested in writing a serious article about Mir in popular culture. No, these articles are almost without exception created by editors of the main page (such as Mir) so that they don't have to deal with the information anymore. So, articles like this sit out there, watched and cared about by nobody, which is why we end up sometimes having spam in them that sits there for MONTHS without being noticed. Articles are routinely deleted for being unsourced: one could argue that sources can be found, but that argument usually doesn't go over unless there's some belief that someone will actually find the sources and add them to the article. Wikipedia has a major quality deficit, but it has, mostly, achieved the breadth it should. The project has been evolving to be more focused on quality, and having an extremely poor article that's a vandalism target sitting around for months or years hoping someone will eventually improve it is a bad idea. Mango juice^talk 11:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Stbalbach that this essay should not be POV as it does not represent all the legitimate keep arguments at AfD. Please add to the "nutshell" a "but..." about the upside with adoption and maintenance. I am willing to maintain a number of these lists, but not when they're going to be nominated any second. My current goal is to source as many items as possible in Fight Club in popular culture, as well as find secondary sources that discuss the prominence of these subjects being referenced ipc. –Pomte 14:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. As with any article, we don't want poorly sourced, poor quality material on Wikipedia. However, pop culture subarticles can be a legitimate part of a topic. Though I'm not a regular at WP:FAC, maybe if a candidate article has a pop culture section and subarticle, we should expect it to be of satisfactory quality. I can try to watch FAC more for this. --Aude (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do good pop culture articles exist?~~
The Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc article really stands alone as an article that could relate to a collection of cultural references without integration that has received a rating of some kind of quality. However, it really doesn't meet the featured list criteria, but in any case, it's not a recognized article of quality. Instead of arguing back and forth over this kind of issue, I would like to propose that we work on a pop culture article and try to elevate it to at least WP:GA status as an article. What about MIT in popular culture? It's a good start, has coherent text, et cetera. Mango juice^talk 16:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's still very much a work in progress, but I'm working to improve articles relating to 9/11, with the goal of getting some up to featured status. Current efforts include the article on the World Trade Center, and relevant subarticles or related articles:
World Trade Center - close to GA, once the pop culture situation is sorted out.
Design and construction of the World Trade Center - would pass GA if nominated, close to FA.

Collapse of the World Trade Center

7 World Trade Center - somewhat close to GA

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Larry Silverstein - needs work

Popular culture - in my userspace, while cleanup happens

These articles are on their way to becoming a featured topic. You may notice in the main WTC article, there is a lengthy pop culture section. It's a textbook case of the cycle described in this essay. On January 3, 2006, I had split off the overly long pop culture section into a subarticle [2] My bad for not maintaining the subarticle too well. It served as a place to divert this type of material and at some point, when I get the WTC article close to FA, the subarticle would get a cleanup. It was deleted in November (me unaware of the deletion request, I was on semi-wikibreak). The main WTC article at the time, [3] still with the short pop culture section and link. The WTC article today, with the material creeping back in. I am working on cleaning up the pop culture subarticle (restored into my userspace, via deletion review). When it's ready, it will move back into article space. The pop culture section in the main article will be restored to the brief sentence we had from January - November 2006.

As I get the WTC article to featured status, all the subarticles will improve in quality, to at least good article if not featured article status themselves. I dislike working on pop culture articles, but it too is included in my efforts and the goal is to make it a featured list. Per WP:SUMMARY, there is no way that anything more than that brief sentence needs to be in the main article. Nonetheless, pop culture references are notable enough [4] [5], people will always want to add stuff, and it needs a place somewhere on Wikipedia. A newbie was "a little offended" and left a not-too-happy comment on my talk page when I cut their material out. There was not subarticle at the time to move it. I would have preferred directing them to a subarticle, rather than turning off a newbie from the project. --Aude (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~"This page in a nutshell:" dispute~~
It is bad faith to assume that readers can't make sense of the {{essay}} tag directly above the {{nutshell}} summary. To be clear, we don't need to be redundant. It's also wrong to say "The editors who wrote this essay believe that..." because I've taken a part in editing this and I don't personally believe in it, although I agree with the gist of the WP:TRIV guideline, which is what this essay attempts to follow. –Pomte 02:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The essay tag already says, "It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects some opinions of its authors." (Which, now that I look at it, might be worth changing at Template:Essay; will raise the issue at Template talk:Essay.) Mango juice^talk 03:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all the above. Quadzilla99 03:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Putting the clarification there is not bad faith, it's making sure sure people who are reading it don't just glance over the tag above and fully understand that the statements in the nutshell are opinions and not commands people have to follow.
More to the point, since User:Mangojuice specifically left a message on my talk page berating me for restoring an "in popular culture" to the article instead of a redirect after a deletion vote said to Keep it and pointed to this page as if it were a justification for his edits, it would seem that he wants to try to confuse people.
There's no reason not to spell it out so people CAN'T be confused unless people WANT to confuse people. If you want to argue good faith then put the disclaimer in there. Otherwise I think that it's clear where the bad faith comes in, and it sure isn;t with trying to make things more clear. DreamGuy 06:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're clear now, right? Go back and reread my comment here; if I was berating you for anything, it was for the condescending message you left to me here, not for disagreeing with me over the course of action I took. I was trying to expand on my explanation of why I did what I did by linking here. The fact that you took this page as a "command" when it has said it was an essay and not policy on the top, and my comment never implied this was policy but merely explanation for my philosophy, is not a problem with the page. Mango juice^talk 11:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy, I have to agree with Mangojuice, your "clarification" is unnecessary, because of {{essay}} tag already says "it merely reflects some opinions of its authors." Carlosguitar 10:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~List of cultural references to The Shining~~
Could an admin please quickly go over this deleted list and give me some feedback on its quality, especially the lead-in, which tried to justify the existence of the article? The AfD seemed to be more about the nature of IPC articles rather than the article itself. The result would have been the same despite the number of citations (20-some) that I added. I don't feel so strongly about it to take to WP:DRV, but it was a bit ridiculous and depressing. –Pomte 03:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead-in was pretty decent but it didn't justify that article. Basically, the lead-in justified itself: a brief statement about the impact of The Shining on popular culture that says basically everything that needs to be said. The problem, I think, was that the list was so completely indiscriminate, including any possible reference, no matter if it was a momentary gag or a full-blown parody, from very popular stuff down to very obscure stuff, and made up a very long list that gives no illumination. And on top of that, it even had a section for "miscellaneous" references. The list here violated WP:NOT#IINFO, and no lead would have been able to justify it sufficiently. Actually I think this case is a very good example of the harm forking can do: obviously, The Shining is not just any pop culture topic, and probably should be covered, but the title of the article condemned this article to what it was: an indiscriminate list. And that title was chosen not because the forked article was wanted, but because the material in the main article was unwanted. Mango juice^talk 04:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recommended an opposer to remove any unsourced (overly indiscriminate) items if he wished, but that was not done. I didn't do it myself because I was actively searching for sources for each item. WP:NOT#IINFO concerns can easily be imagined as fixable, even if people don't fix it themselves. Unless WP:NOT#IINFO is interpreted in an overly broad way (a previous, possibly incoherent rant on this here).

I think that as long as the lead reliably asserts the notability of the topic in pop culture, as well as some reasons that it has been so prominent in pop culture, then that justifies a list of examples. If not, then no list can possibly be justified. What do you think about the lead in Cultural references to the novel The Catcher in the Rye?

The "miscellaneous" section shows the diversity of media involved. It could have been split into a reasonably sized "video games" section. The first item is definitely notable, and could be moved to the lead of "miscellaneous" is deleted. Anyway, my point is that there are solutions, and at least one editor who would implement them.

The title of the article isn't much of an issue either, as it could easily be renamed. Having the prefix "List of" doesn't make it more indiscriminate than The Shining in popular culture, nor does it encourage a different editing mentality. There have been discussions on whether IPC articles are better suited in list or prose form, with no consensus.

The fork was made not because the material was unwanted. The diff by an editor who !voted keep shows a perceived convention for this sort of fork. –Pomte 07:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While sources were also needed, I think the indiscriminate nature of the list was by far the more urgent issue. You seem to think the concept was just fine, that objecters could remove the few items they found bad. But that's the problem: the concept of this article was bad and people weren't believing in it. The title could have been changed, but I generally see people suggesting a mere "move" when the title is the only problem. (While I agree that titles can be changed by moving, you must agree that this is a much clunkier process, less admitting of discussion, than the way section headers develop in an article.) Side questions: the Catcher in the Rye header is lousy; I can go into it if you want. As for the fork, my point is more that the fork wasn't done in an attempt to make a good subarticle, but rather to move that section out of the article. The title chosen was merely a good description of what was moved, and made the subarticle not aspire to be more than a container of a list of trivia. Mango juice^talk 13:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Sorting by types of references~~
Most if not all IPC articles sort their items by format, i.e. film, television, animation, video games, music, etc. While intuitive and easily browsed, this places an emphasis on the referencing works rather than the work that's being referenced. Would it be more pleasing to instead sort by the type of reference? Fight Club in popular culture does this broadly by distinguishing between references to the novel and references to the film. It could go further, to group together the parodies of the first rule of Fight Club, parodies of the characters, puns of the title, name droppings, etc. This would have an effect of focusing on the popular features of the work itself. Some quotes/puns/scenes/characters are referenced or parodied more often than others, and so the article will reflect what exactly is responsible for a significant portion of them, without making a statement of original research. –Pomte 07:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting idea, sure. I would worry about references that fit multiple categories, though. It reminds me of Jeopardy! in popular culture, where there is (or was) a section specifically about the "Think!" music. Mango juice^talk 13:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~in computer Games~~
These sections of articles pose a particular problem, because there is little in the way of conventional RSs. Sources are sometimes taken from the game manual--sometimes, as in the Civilization series of games, the manual has talked extensively about the meaning and significance of the objects used in the games. There is the further problem that in most role-playing or adventure games, the characters are relatively stock figures--all the games of a particular type use more or less the same types of weapons and people and imaginary monsters and so on--and there is not really much to say about each one. Probably a paragraph giving the different games that use a character or whatever is an adequate way of dealing with these. In general, my opinion is that is acceptable to lose these sections to save the rest. As more information is found, these can perhaps be separate articles. It might well make sense to have an article of Magicians in computer games -- especially if anyone ever writes an article or book comparing them, as I am sure they will. DGG (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Verifiable evidence of significance ??~~
Quoting the article: "In many cases, an excessively long popular culture or trivia section can simply be trimmed to those which have verifiable evidence of significance."
That's great, but one person's significant item is another's useless trivia. Who decides?
To take a very minor example, List of cheerleaders includes Spirit Squad, a wrestling team. The team was notable enough to get into Wikipedia, but their connection to cheerleading seems very slight.
Who decides significance? Wanderer57 18:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~It's currently quite arbitrarily decided. It might continue to be so indefinitely.--Father Goose 21:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Thank you, Father. Would it be fair to say then that the lengthy discussion in Wikipedia talk:"In popular culture" articles is basically academic? Wanderer57 21:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Nah. Wikipedia is a living entity, the state of things can always change. I've seen plenty of discussions result in progress, and plenty of others go nowhere. WP:ROC is an attempt to address some of the arbitrariness you have brought up, but it doesn't necessarily apply to pop culture lists, and it's stagnant right now.--Father Goose 21:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I interpret it, the quote means to trim to those that have a reference to a reputable source that declares or displays the claim's signifigance. You can then decide the validity and reputation of the reference the same as you would any other reference cited in WP. The interesting thing is, once you make this requirement, it becomes far easier and often more appropriate to transform the information from a list into encyclopedic prose. As a purely hypothetical and made up example, making mention that the majority of baby boomers in the United States who recognize the finale to the William Tell Overture know it only as the themesong for The Lone Ranger. Then referencing a survey conducted that gives evidence of that fact. -Verdatum 18:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great in theory, but such surveys almost never exist. That's one of the problems with Wikipedia: we can't document stuff that really is well-known (or obvious) but not explicitly documented somewhere else. I'm not saying that we should be allowed to do so, just that it's frustrating that we can't.--Father Goose 20:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Popular culture referencing popular culture notable?~~
Now I'm not an advocate of either trivia or abolishing trivia, but I'm curious: why is popular culture referencing popular culture sufficiently notable to include in Wikipedia? We're living in a time where popular culture is everywhere.
Are references to popular culture in movies and television shows, such as Californication, really that big of a deal? Living in Southern California, maybe I'm just desensitized? Or maybe these popular-culture trivia sections in popular-culture articles are just not appropriate these days? Adraeus (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me ask you, by way of explanation: have you ever read The Life of Julius Caesar, by Plutarch? I sure haven't. But you've certainly heard the phrase "veni, vidi, vici", which is documented in that book. That phrase is famous, and notable, because it's everywhere in our culture. If wasn't found throughout popular culture, that phrase would just be something clever Caesar said, and not notable in its own right.
It's easy to disparage the role of popular culture within culture in general, but its impact is profound, whether we like it or not. As for whether it's worth documenting the popular culture references that a TV show or movie makes, the biggest "offender" I know of would be probably be Family Guy. I get most of the references in that, since I'm the same age as MacFarlane, but I'm sure younger people watching the show think, quite often, "what the hell was that"? It may be the same thing with you and Californication -- being from the East Coast, I probably wouldn't get most of the California-specific references, but they're ordinary to you. In the same vein, I recognized Nighthawks in The Tick, but someone had to point out to me The Battleship Potemkin reference in Brazil.
We couldn't do a good job of writing about a poem without documenting its cultural references, yet some people seem to have a passion for deleting similar scholarship done for an ostensibly non-scholarly work. To be honest, it boggles me.--Father Goose (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not questioning the significance of popular culture. I'm questioning whether popular culture references in popular culture are sufficiently notable to include in Wikipedia. Examples will probably work best here:
Californication and Entourage are both TV series with stories told within a popular-culture setting. At that point, references to popular culture are merely content that add credibility to the presentation. These references are not distinct or unique to the setting. These references are not noteworthy just as a tree prop is not distinct or unique to a forest setting. If Wikipedia were alive and kicking around the time that color television debuted, would every color tone used in each film be notable for inclusion?

I, Robot is a science-fiction film whose setting was the distant future. References to real, present-day popular culture in that setting are clearly notable for inclusion since the impact of popular is, as you say, significant.

Adraeus (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of the Californication show, I think much of those items in the Reference to Popular Culture section could be moved to the individual episode pages, thereby presenting it in a more contextually relevant manner. But in general, I am hesitant to say that these are not valuable facts, since they are easy to miss and add to the depth of coverage of the subject at hand. Also, these types of lists are finite discriminate, being limited to content from the primary source, and so I do not see any reason why this type of content should be explicitly disallowed. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~I refer you to the second and third paragraphs of my response above. Yes, I went on a bit of a tangent with my first paragraph.--Father Goose (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
My briefest answer to the question is no - at least, PC references to PC are not inherently notable. However, if someone bothers to collect and analyze references and start making some general observations in reliable sources, it becomes notable. This is surely true, for instance, of "veni, vidi, vici" but probably fails for most of the trivia around here. Mango juice^talk 20:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that's the criterion--that's the quality of the article. The notability depends on the notability of the cultural object being referred to, and the one making the reference. Everything substantial in a major cultural artifact is encyclopedic content. Every major reference to a major artifact is encyclopedic content. That's content, not necessarily a separate article--what is worth a separate article depends upon the amount of material available. For a really major film or novel or video game, every individual named character or setting in it is appropriate for inclusion somewhere within a WP article, as is every reference to any other notable content/. That's what the creative world is made of. that's reality. Note the really major; for less important works, perhaps only the major characters or themes or settings are relevant. The incorrect criterion mention is requiring every individual piece of content to meet the criterion for notability, and that is very explicitly not the requirement--only the overall subject needs that degree of documentation. any verifiable source is good for the detailed content of an article. DGG (talk) 05:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the fact that Converse footwear can be seen in the movie I, Robot notable? Or is that fact only notable when put in the context of advertising placement in entertainment media and when used as an example? I strongly disagree that the mere presence of cultural artifacts in popular culture makes each artifact sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

I don't think contextually inappropriate content automatically satisfies, or should automatically satisfy, the criteria for inclusion simply because the content is verifiable content. Otherwise, we might as well just import trivia from IMDb. I can just imagine Wikipedia then. "Brad Pitt was wearing an Armani suit in Film A." "A song performed by The Beatles was playing in the background in Film B."

Are references to popular culture, when those references are made by popular culture, notable? More importantly, when should such references be included in Wikipedia? Certainly not always, but when? I believe objective criteria can be established here. Adraeus 12:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about Brad Pitt and his Armani suit, but I do know that I've read (and edited) articles where they mention the music used in the film/tv show. Generally I find this in a "Soundtrack" or "Featured music" section. Now, is this notable? Personally, I'm not 100% sure either way; however I do know that if enough people feel strongly about it, it will either be included or removed. I'm not certain why the changing shape and development of an article would be a problem, since all articles on Wikipedia are subject to (sometimes drastic) content modification, regardless of it "popular culture" type facts, or any other piece of information that covers a less than essential aspect of the subject. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 14:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

music in films is one of the major elements--books are written about it, careers are devoted to it, academy awards are given. It a particular song is in a significant movie, it was chosen for some other reason than being on the directors ipod. it'll probably even be in the published reviews. I am at a slight disadvantage here, talking about what I know is important but have no particular ability to myself improve the articles--this is not a subject I know, unless I in desperation learn it to keep others from destroying this part of WP. (I've already learned about a few types of web content i never paid any attention to before.) DGG (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~They Are Important~~
In Popular Culture articles are extremely important. We got to stop thinking about wikipedia as a common encyclopedia. This is a collaborative job!Camilo Sanchez (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a syllogism for why they're important generally? I don't see how the project being collaborative has any bearing. Personally I think the bar should be set very high before popular culture is added, basically at the point that it adds important meaning to the article in question like demonstrating its impact (but then is just exemplary and not exhaustive) or noting ways in which the cultural use is expanding the meaning of the article (again then it's exemplary and not exhaustive). Otherwise it's just exhaustive examples of how the concept is used, and doesn't add any further understanding to it. - Owlmonkey (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~In your opinion.--Father Goose (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
Owlmonkey is not alone in that opinion. "Exhaustive examples of how the concept is used" that do not "add any further understanding" certainly fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~And I am not alone in mine. Which leaves us merely in disagreement.--Father Goose (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
I find there is not much disagreement about including or excluding every single instance that SubjectX is mentioned. Editors just need to be a little more generous when it comes to making allowances for others, and less categorical when it comes to their own opinions. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 13:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, I rarely have a problem with someone reducing a list to just its "major instances", though that must be subjectively determined. What I don't agree with is characterizing all IPC lists as "indiscriminate information".--Father Goose (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Classical music in popular culture nominated for deletion~~
~~If you have an opinion, please voice it here. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Significant rewrite~~
Keeping in line with what I felt has been a large scale community consensus development on In popular culture articles and sections, I have significantly rewritten this essay. Please compare the new version with the old and make some comments. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 16:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like it, but I restored some of the material that you removed which I thought should be addressed in this essay. Otherwise I left your edits pretty much untouched, save for a few edits for consistency and redundancy. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wasn't sure about keeping the AfD related stuff, since it seems like the community has more or less decided/accepted that these are here to stay. There seems to be less and less IPC articles being nominated for deletion, and really, there are quite a few good IPC articles out there, so I don't really think there's still a lot of debate about whether Wikipedia should have IPC articles anymore. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 00:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~IPC inclusion guideline~~
The time has come to make some clear criteria for including an item in an IPC list. Clearly the two extremes are both ludicrous, since there is atleast one notable example of something referenced in popular culture, and there is atleast one nonnotable pop culture reference. We can't just keep or delete them all. So if we're going to be making decisions about what to keep and delete, they might as well be guided ones.
Sections and articles are being deleted on the grounds that they are unencyclopedia or "trivial". And in some cases this is true. On other subjects, often there are several major examples of its pop culture influences. We need some discussion on what makes a good entry for each of the different categories that usually crop up in IPC sections (music, television, film, literature/fiction, video games, etc). Also guidance about this like common catch phrases or stuff like one-off name-dropping. All thoughts are welcome. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At an absolute minimum, each entry in an IPC list should be verifiable. Per WP:PSTS, one can verify a claim about a primary source via the primary source itself, although if the source in question is a TV show, comic strip, etc., I personally require specific episode(s)/strips to be mentioned (unless the reference in question is in nearly every episode). If the primary source has not had wide viewership, I tend to exclude it, although WP:BIGNUMBERs are not meaningful, even when available (web counters, etc.). In a pinch, one can make the argument that if the entry can't be bluelinked in some form, it can be excluded.
The second question is whether the reference itself is significant. I don't think there's any way to objectively quantify it. Consensus would be the best mechanism, although that falls apart when hard-line inclusionists or deletionists are involved. Even if it's only one moderate doing the evaluation, it's a problem; I remember watching Mangojuice (the original author of this essay) fight to keep mention of Castlevania out of the now-deleted Beelzebub in popular culture, while retaining the passing mention of Beelzebub in Bohemian Rhapsody. What's significant? What's not? I don't accept the premise, sometimes voiced, that the "importance" of material should be determined from secondary sources. WP:N expressly applies only to topics, not content, and is effectively an outgrowth of WP:V. It creates problems when people try to use it for purposes other than the enforcement of WP:V.--Father Goose (talk) 05:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree with your suggestion (if I understand it correctly) that secondary sources are NOT the way to evaluate the significance of content. That's EXACTLY how we evaluate content. WP:V is at the absolute core of what Wikipedia aspires to be. AndyJones (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the problem here is that secondary sources are sometimes mistaken as being the only form of verification, which they are not. If what is present in a reliable source matches what is written in Wikipedia, the information is verifiable. WP:V does not speak to "significance", just verifiability, and WP:N is ultimately only a reflection of it: if information is not verifiable, it does not belong in Wikipedia.--Father Goose (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FatherGoose is right, if we are to interpret WP:NNC applies only to the article itself, not the content of the article. It states "The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines" which is common sense, and one of those WP:BEANS disclaimers. But I digress, my issue is... whoever declared "trivia is discouraged" should be drawn and quartered because thats like saying "delete the unwanted articles". Who is the judge of what is "trivial" and what is not? Debating the issue over and over again is a waste of time, with every article that comes under scruitny because of trivial content. I would hate to see wikipedia turn into a giant trivia database, but honestly... most of this stuff is harmless. When I read an article about Einstein I think its funny to see what tv shows and movies have parodied his charater. If thats not what I'm interested in, then I skip over that section and move on. I realize some of these lists grow too large and have to be moved to separate articles, but I see no harm in that either. Lists are not evil, and compiling a list does not constitute WP:OR unless interpretations are being made. Yet time and time again you see arguments presenting "listcruft" as violations of WP:OR and WP:TRIVIA (which isn't even a policy, merely a guideline). Nick, as far as your quest for "clear criteria" regarding IPC lists, good luck with that. You'd have better luck herding cats. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not giving up so easily. We need to examine this "from the primary source" business, because I think this is where things are starting to take a wrong turn. This is what leads to the conclusion that since any time someone mentions a person, place or thing it can be verified from the primary source, it is worthy of including. But I ask you, without secondary sources, how can we be sure that this instance has made a significant cultural impact? And if there are no secondary sources with which to cite the instance, then the action of adding it to the list involves performing original research, because the editor is clearly taking the information from the primary source to the Wiki. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 23:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that for a Foo in popular culture article to exist, there need to be reliable sources that actually discuss the concept of "Foo in popular culture." If these sorts of articles were called what they actually are, List of times foo is mentioned, I have a hard time believing that any but the most hard core of inclusionists would even attempt to defend them. "On the February 29, 2006 episode of Cool TV Show, Cool Guy Number 1 said 'foo'" is not a discussion of the concept of "Foo in popular culture." "Social scientist Jane Roe has identified the use by Cool Guy Number 1 of the word 'foo' on the February 29, 2006 episode of Cool TV Show as a seminal point in the entrance of foo into the Albanian cultural landscape" is. There are ways of handling the actual significant examples of foo outside of the source material of foo. See for instance Dorothy_Parker#Pastiches_and_fictional_portrayals. It's a prose section with sources detailing times when she has been portrayed or pastiched. Notice that the article does not contain a list of every time the name "Dorothy Parker" is mentioned in any source. See also Adaptations of Moby-Dick. It needs better sourcing and a couple of the examples are a little sketchy, but these are verifiable instances of the source novel being adapted. There's no "one this one episode of that one show this guy called that other guy 'Captain Ahab'." Adaptations of The Picture of Dorian Gray is an excellent example of how this process can work. It was nominated for deletion looking like this and after cleanup ended up looking like this (and has continued to receive attention from editors. All of the "this one band sang a song that had 'Dorian Gray' in the lyrics" trivia is gone. Otto4711 (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A while ago someone requested a cleanup of the IPC section in the Steve Biko article (diffs). In particular, the music, film and television sections were overloaded with oneliners. To improve this, I cut the sections down only to examples where his life was the major focus of the song or film. I think this is the approach we should take with items, it separates the wheat from the chaff. But I should point out that even thought the Dorothy_Parker#Pastiches_and_fictional_portrayals section is pretty good quality, it suffers from sourcing issues. But as Father Goose points out, these are examples where they can be verified by watching the film, so I think consensus is leaning towards a verification grey area. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 02:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the is some difficulty with works of fiction/film, because there are cases when it is a character named after another character/person. Do all of these cases meet the criteria for inclusion, or is there need to take a hardline stance against all items that we cannot find a secondary source to attribute the connection/notability of the example? --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 16:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an FYI, all of the pastiches are sourced to the same note. Otto4711 (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for individual items, the relevance of each item is in its use. WP:N does not apply to content, only relevance to the topic applies. The notability of the individual items in an article is usually not all that great, or they would be separate articles. We mention all the departments in a university article, but usually not a single one of them would be notable by itself. As applied here, if "Jane Roe has identified the use by Cool Guy Number 1 of the word 'foo' on the February 29, 2006 episode of Cool TV Show as a seminal...." then that particular use might be notable enough for a separate article. I'm not hard-core inclusionist enough to want to do that. If the melting point of a compound A is x degrees, and two good sources say so, that still does not mean we write an article on The melting point of A. Rather, we know that the melting point of a compound is relevant to the information of a compound that meets notability.

As for notability of the overall topic, I've seen people !vote delete on IPC articles even after there was a ref on the notability of the overall topic of references in X. Actually we could probably find this fairly routinely--ever book or article on a work of fiction has a chapter on later appearances of its themes. The rest of the world knows such things are notable. How about a ref saying that the use of references to earlier films is a notable part of film in general -- wouldnt that justify every individual case? We do not need someone to say specifically in so many words that congressman X is an important politician. DGG (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope that you would acknowledge that the departments of a university are of slightly more significance to an article about the university than, say, every appearance of a Mickey Mouse t-shirt on TV would be to the article on Mickey Mouse, or that the melting point of a compound is of a bit more importance than a list of every instance that a Metallica poster appears in the background of a movie. Without specific examples I can't really speak to the notion of people !voting delete in the face of reliable sources about Foo in pop culture. As for the notion that "every" or even most books include a chapter on later thematic appearances, that has not been my experience but even if that is the case, many of the things that end up as the subject of these poor lists of sightings articles are not "themes" of anything. Otto4711 (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the question is not every appearance, the question is the appearances in general. Nobody will want to write an article about a particular MM T-shirt, or so I hope. So by analogy with universities, we group the departments for a large university in articles about each of the major colleges. I never have defended, and never will, the inclusion of ridiculous content, and you & others do indeed often pick up on afd some items of content that should be removed.--suitable things for editing. On the other hand, I would certainly hold that every use of MM in a movie is worth mentioning--they're not included for decorative purposes. DGG (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly every film in which MM appears as a character is worth including in List of MM cartoons (or whatever the list that I'm sure exists is called). But you know as well as I that that's not what a lot of the content of these sorts of articles is. You know as well as I do that "Bill Smith wore a Mickey Mouse t-shirt in the third episode of The Made-Up Show" ends up in these IPC lists and generally overwhelm them. I don't see why it's so hard to agree that before making an article called "Foo in popular culture" the editor should make sure that there are reliable sources that actually discuss "Foo in popular culture" as a concept. Any other article on Wikipedia is held to the standard that there must be reliable sources that are about the topic of the article, but for these, because Foo is notable, these lists-of-times-that-foo-appears-or-someone-says-foo-or-something-looks-like-foo messes get passes. I think that all anyone is asking of these articles is that they be held to the exact same standards as every other article. Otto4711 (talk) 03:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "not every mention of x is notable", although I don't think secondary sources are a good gauge for the notability of facts (as opposed to subjects). This is a matter for editorial discretion, and your personal discretion on this matter is simply less inclusive than DGG's or mine.
I would be content to omit, straight up, any "passing mentions" from any IPC lists I encounter. Evaluations of whether a given reference is a "passing mention" would have to be made subjectively, though I'd be surprised if we could not achieve a reasonable degree of consensus in most cases. I am especially ready to exclude entries disputed on a factual basis ("that's not a so-and-so!")
For borderline cases, I personally would err on the side of inclusion, as I have difficulty seeing the harm in including "low-importance" information in Wikipedia. (I grant that low-importance information should not displace more important information, which is why I favor spinning off any lengthy IPC lists into separate articles, but I also assert that given that wiki is not paper, there is no reason to delete information solely on the basis of some notion of "importance" -- which as I said before cannot be effectively gauged via coverage in secondary sources.)--Father Goose (talk) 05:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, my point is that these articles should not exist if all they do is document the existence of examples of Foos appearing in various artifacts of popular culture. They should exist only if there are reliable secondary sources that are about the topic "Foo in popular culture." Examples that illustrate those secondary sources, preferably ones mentioned in the secondary sources themselves, are certainly appropriate, but sheer weight of numbers of references to Foo in other cultural artifacts does not suddenly mean that "Foo in popular culture" passes WP:N. Otto4711 (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Otto; if there are no sources to demonstrate that the subject has had a notable influence in popular culture (the now deleted Sonic weaponry in popular culture, for example), then the article should not exist, regardless of how many examples users can discover. To parallel this with the case of the university department faculty example: the fact that the university has departments is notable because the departments are a part of what makes the university a university. The list of examples, while not all notable in their own right, flushes out the finer details of this notable subject. Similarly, with another subject, their influence in popular culture should be such that you cannot give a complete and balanced write-up of the subject unless you discuss it's popular culture influence. Thus, unless there is something to demonstrate that SubjectX has had a notable influence, then there shouldn't be an IPC section/article. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 22:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Arbitrary break~~
I don't have much to add that hasn't already been said brilliantly above. I feel that IPC ought to be brought in as a guideline but I also feel that the effort to do so will enflame a lot of tensions. Currently the biggest debates in AfD come from BLP, IPC and borderline WP:N disputes, with severity in that order. Debates about censorship get contentious and long but they don't crop up as often. I think the issue breaks down to a few fundamental quarrels:
WP:N takes pains to be exclusive of articles and not items. In other words, a good portion of the IPC complaints stem from the assertion that individual items on lists tend to not be notable by themselves. Granted, this isn't a complete argument and it isn't the only argument, but it is one that appears commonly.

WP:PAPER. Essay or not, the fact that wikipedia is not paper is pretty apparent to anyone. It is plain that no constraining database limits exist and that new articles do 0 damage to the encyclopedia at the margin. The outright prohibition on IPC articles seems to fly in the face of this notion.

WP:IINFO. While this policy seems to be helpful, in practice (during debates), it generates needless argumentation. An editor endorsing deletion will declare a list to be indiscriminate. An editor endorsing retention will declare a list discriminate. After the exchange, nothing of value has been added. This is either due to strategic unwillingness to admit what looks to be a point of nuance or due to genuine disagreements over the definition and application of the word discriminate.

WP:V. This is the most persuasive argument for me. Assuming that an article (even a list) requires the sources attributed impute notability through significant coverage of the topic, then every article must flow from the sources. If, as has been argued in numerous debates over IPC and IPC lists, the articles are not based on these sources, then the references cited do not verify the text. That is, they may verify the explicit claims made in the text (X mentioned Y here) but if the source is the only one cited then it must also verify the central thesis of the article.

To me, the central secondary source is the kicker. If, as we have seen in past deletion discussions, the article is presented as notable based on the presence of august sources verifying portions of the text but none of the sources make the same claim as the article itself (As in the recent Cheshire Cat in Popular culture AfD) then it is dishonest to claim that the sources verify the text. In that AfD, it was claimed that the Popular Culture in Political Cartoons: Analyzing Cartoonist Approaches article made the claim that the article broadly connected the Cheshire Cat to popular culture. Such a claim was explicit in the AfD and the article. I don't mean to accuse editors of dishonestly. The problem isn't individual editors. the problem is that the current scheme for IPC lists creates an incentive for editors to create the article from primary source mentions, then go searching for a secondary source to "unify" the document. Since most of us don't have access to the gated journals but search engines can seek out specific phrases, we tend to add sources which 'sound' like they would work but don't actually verify the text or impute notability to the subject. This, to me, is a function of articles built from disparate primary documentation, not specific to popular culture. However, as the items in these lists are less likely to have unifying secondary documentation and they are liable to have simple primary documentation (lots of us watch movies and TV), IPC lists are rife with these problems. A unifying guideline that demanded a specific secondary source to cover the theme of the article would clarify a lot of the debate. Protonk (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't see the harm in lists without unifying secondary sources, as long as it is simply a list and not an article which discusses the influence of Subject X on pop culture. But I agree there needs to be more concrete guidelines regarding these articles, and if we have to get rid of pure list articles then so be it. After the merge of List of Kolkata facts (which I put a day's work into), I'm not sure how much of my time I want to waste trying to improve list articles. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think lists are inherently harmful. I think that flat lists of characteristics or events like this list of Žižek works is fine. It is a navigational tool. It presents no thesis and requires no transformative or creative effort in order to construct. this list of CAS numbers also seems ok to me, partially for the same reason but also because there is likely to be an authoritative secondary source listing these compounds. I think if we have a list that serves as a navigational tool for notable subjects, we should be ok. Where I feel we have a problem is a list that connects a notable idea "foo" to something else "popular culture". here the entries in the list about "foo" aren't REALLY about it. they are about the connection between the idea and popular culture. The list exists because of the assumed notability (or, if there is a unifying secondary document, the imputed notability) of that connection. Often, when there are only primary or secondary mentions of the connection and not its significance (e.g. the cheshire cat list), then the temptation to stretch the meaning of the sourcing is high. Protonk (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and similarly with IPC. It's sometimes argued that each item could go with the work using the material--that the article on film X that had a chesire cat as a major motive would say that it had a major motive. And so it should. Then the IPC article brings them together.DGG (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But only if there are reliable sources that discuss the motif. Otto4711 (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually one of my personal rules of thumb when cleaning up an IPC section; if it's not notable enough to mention in the article for the work making the reference, it's not notable enough for inclusion in the IPC article. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 00:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Inclusion guideline draft~~
So far, with your thoughts in mind, this is what I've come up with for some sort of content guide. When I look at it, it is basically what is there right now, but it emphasizes the secondary sources thing, and it's a little more straight forward. Thoughts, comments, edits? --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 02:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Sure thing:~~

~~A cultural reference should be considered notable when they are mentioned in the article for the work containing the reference.~~

~~What does this sentence mean? Do you mean to say?:~~

~~A cultural reference should be considered notable when the allusion itself is referenced in the work cited.~~

~~Or do you mean?:~~
~~A cultural reference should be considered notable when its inclusion in the original article on the subject in question can be made without substantially altering or degrading the original article~~
~~~~Protonk (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)~~ No longer applicable to current draft. Protonk (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
Also, in general, I would prefer fewer words rather than more. If we can express that ANY IPC reference ought to come from a secondary source and be non-trivial in nature, then I think that is sufficient. I don't think it is necessary to specifically delineate forms of art. Perhaps then we can lobby to have this included in WP:TRIV. Protonk (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to reiterate how important I feel it is that any guideline include instructions that there must be reliable secondary sources that discuss "Foo in popular culture" as a notable topic in its own right before creating an IPC article. Otherwise the lists generated under the proposed guideline are still indulging in original research. "Foo is mentioned a number of times in a number of things, therefore it must be important in popular culture" is synthesis. Otto4711 (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with only using a few words to express something in a guideline is that these tend to be very big and loaded words, and the implications of them are not always so clear cut. I think this is perhaps part of the problem with the current state of affairs. I will try (or you can try!) to edit the draft to make it more clear. IPC sections really do need secondary sources discussion the subjects notability in popular culture, and I want this to be reflected. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 16:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not really helpful: "A cultural reference should be considered notable when they are mentioned in the article for the work containing the reference." all that's necessary to do to justify a reference would be to add it to the article. Easy enough. anything goes. On the other hand, in the existing articles, most of which are incompetent, a great many things arent mentioned that really ought to be. I think the meaning might be "when it would be appropriate to add it to the article"--but this doesnt work either--it just shift the argument. I and others would maintain quite seriously that in the article about say a movie, a description of every movie refereed to by it is appropriate content, every bit as much so as the plot--and even of real world importance, as that's how movies are constructed and analyzed. In game articles, its normal to mention somewhere all the weapons, characters and whatever. (of course, people do sometimes object to this content, but then, ity just shifts the argument.). The two ways of looking at things are reciprocal. DGG (talk) 03:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I support an effort to come up with "rules of thumb" for IPC list maintenance and item selection. However, I think it's an error to specifically try to create it as a guideline; this is the approach I took with the relevance of content proposal, and while much of what I suggested there was reasonable, I also (in retrospect) think it would have produced more harm than good had it become an actual guideline.
I think the best way to approach this is to put a set of several test cases before the membership of the popular culture project and have everyone collaborate on making them the best they could possibly be. Any general points of agreement can be written up as a project-specific guideline (which should not be a {{guideline}}-guideline, as official "rules" inevitably turn into a means of controlling other editors, instead of documenting a set of good practices). Since ultimately it is the membership of the IPC project that is taking responsibility for this type of content, we should get our heads together on just what an "ideal" IPC list or article should look like, and what standards should be adopted in order to reach that ideal.--Father Goose (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Champagne in popular culture Seems like a good one to me (hat tip to Otto for pointing this one out). Secondary sourcing galore. good article structure. Numerous and notable references. It's B-class at the moment but should be a GA (IMO). There are also two GA's within the project itself: Black_Swan_emblems_and_popular_culture and Cultural_depictions_of_spiders. Protonk (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not going to be useful in establishing an inclusion guideline, just as an exercise in how to make a good article better. I'm thinking more along the lines of looking at several full-size IPC lists and discussing what's worth keeping, what should be changed (if anything), and why?--Father Goose (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh. I think see what you mean. that might be contentious. Do you mean to say that we should provisionally accept this guideline (for the purpose of argumentation or illustration), review a list, and produce a new version of that list in accordance with the guideline we agree upon? That way we could link to such a list as an example of what we are looking for? Can you clarify? Protonk (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's pretty much what I have in mind. Not all these lists can be improved to the point of Champagne IPC, but that does not preclude turning a poor list into a better list. I suggested having the discussion amongst the IPC membership (and shooting for "project standards" instead of a full-on guideline) to sidestep the contention you correctly anticipate. Many of us who do support the retention of IPC lists also accept that not every entry is worth keeping, so I'd like to see what kind of pruning, reorganization, and other changes even the inclusionists would embrace. Left to our own devices, we might come up with something tolerable to a broad swath of editors. If turns into a fight, though, everyone will just get stubborn.

The Howard Hughes IPC section (which was briefly its own article) always struck me as one that mixed truly important and seemingly pointless information, so I propose it as the first test case. Here is the most complete version of its IPC section I could find; what kind of decisions would the IPC project make regarding this content? Would it differ substantially from others' handling of it?--Father Goose (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that section seems to be blank in that revision. Below (the new subsection) I have started a conversation along those lines for Works_influenced_by_Alice_in_Wonderland. Protonk (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Thanks, fixed it.--Father Goose (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean about the list. You want to work with that one or work with the live Alice one? Protonk (talk) 06:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An officially unofficial ruleset is better than pure guesswork, so I'd be pleased with anything along those lines. I agree that the WikiProject should have a say in any sort of guidance, since they work with this type of content the most. However, we have to explore the issue from more than just the inclusionist side of things, which is why I'm interested in getting outside input from a limited number of knowledgeable editors. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 06:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~An "IPC" Example~~
this is a reply to Father goose above. The intent here is to determine how the community would apply the guidance we are discussing (as a standard, rather than a guideline) to a marginal article. I have chosen Works influenced by Alice in Wonderland because the subject is clearly notable, good examples (with secondary sources) exist but bad examples populate the list. This article isn't linked here as a means to castigate the editors who have worked on it, but to attempt to see how the list would change were the 'standards' applied. If we improve the list in the process, all the better! The link to the original version is here. The version as of this posting is here. It isn't decided in my mind whether I would like to press for this to be encorporated as a guideline or bring it to the project simply as a standard but we may continue that discussion apart from the application of the guidance itself. Protonk (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to not get back to you sooner. I intend to look at this article in the near future and do at least an initial analysis of what kind of changes I'd make.--Father Goose (talk) 08:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Here is my first cut. I just commented out the music section because I didn't want to trudge through it. I removed references that were minor or just suggested by an editor. Basically something stayed if it shared a name, a number of thematic elements or a character. That's crude but it is a first start. I would say that about 1/3 to 1/2 of the references that remain could be sourced. I would say that about 1/2 of what remains could also be cut without too much concern from me. Oh, and btw, the article I'm looking at is a mirror on my userspace, so I didn't just cut like 40% of a mainspace page for the sake of this discussion. :) Protonk (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~"In Popular Culture" sections are useful, just misnamed~~
Knowing what was happening culturally in a certain period is useful information that one might want to learn about in an encyclopedia. However what is popular in the 80s might not be popular in the 90s. It would seem to me that having some way to record such info - when a thing was popular, how it manifested, the geographic/social-subgroup limits of that popularity and documentary evidence of all that - would be useful to future readers of wikipedia. I've merrily avoided the wikipedia bureaucracy to date so maybe this is just some bizarre never-ending flame war that folks on wikipedia engage in. In case anyone cares however, knowing how things are viewed in earlier times is something that I've needed to know in the past. Looking into the future, I'd guess that knowing how wikipedia is viewed over time would be of interest to people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinLyda (talk • contribs) 10:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~What would you rename them to?--Father Goose (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~It should be "In popular culture"; I don't get why "Popular Culture" should be capitalized. Gary King (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Edit war over xkcd~~
Please don't get into an edit war over this. If you think the reference ought to be on this page (I do), take it to the talk page. The xkcd cartoon lampoons (or salutes) the very nature of this essay. When and if we move this to a guideline we can talk about removing it for the sake of clarity, but right now I don't think it hurts. Don't make the page get locked because of this. Protonk (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Fair enough. I suppose the irony would do well to improve the atmosphere. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 22:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
I agree with you two; where else in Wikipedia would a Popular Culture entry be more useful than in an article discussing it. Not only does it provide humorous irony, but it illustrates the use of IPC for all those reading this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.46.36 (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Agree as well. I added it originally, and this should be the one place it is mentioned. Also this is an essay, not an article, so it isn't exactly inappropriate with the guidelines by the essay.~~