Wikipedia talk:"In popular culture" content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Essays
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.
 High  This page has been rated as High-impact on the project's impact scale.
 

Removing "notable" from this page[edit]

Notable and non-notable are being used on this page in several places to reference article content, rather than entire articles. I propose these be rewritten to something else, like "encyclopedic", to avoid confusion with WP:N, which only applies to the question of whether a topic deserves its own article. Any objections? Jclemens (talk) 07:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree that the term is confusing and should be switched out, as the real-world meaning of notability and WP:Notability are two different things. I edited the page to remove the confusion. Feel free to change this if you don't like my word choice. ThemFromSpace 19:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Yep. Though there (as of today) a mention or two of this word in there that actually do have the Wikipedia jargon meaning, on purpose.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, when referring to article content I try to use "significance" rather than "notability". DonIago (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Plot summaries[edit]

It would be helpful for this page to have some guidance on a common pattern of "in popular culture" usage, which is to detail works of fiction in various media which use an article subject as a plot background. For example, the article on the 1918 flu pandemic details some novels, movies and television dramas that use the pandemic in their plots.

Aramando (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Aramando

Request for comment: Are "in popular culture" entries "self-sourcing" or do they require a reference under Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources?[edit]

I have started an RfC on whether "in popular culture" entries are "self-sourcing" or, conversely, require a reference under Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.

The RfC is at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, so discussion is centralized there. Comments are welcome. Neutralitytalk 23:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Just noting for the record that the discussion was closed by Aervanath as follows:
The consensus is very clear that a secondary source is required in almost all cases. A tertiary source is even better, if available. In the rare case that a primary source is judged to be sufficient, it should be properly cited. The source(s) cited should not only establish the verifiability of the pop culture reference, but also its significance.
I'm wondering if any particular guideline might need to be updated due to weight of this consensus. - Location (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
It would certainly be nice if the guidelines could be updated such that there was a wiki-link that pointed directly to this information. Speaking as someone who frequently cleans-up IPC sections, I'd much rather refer editors to guideline text than have to go digging for the RfC each time. DonIago (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I added a ref for the RfC and a new shortcut: WP:IPCV. I hoped IPCV would be useful to say that IPC content must be verifiable. I had to fiddle around with the anchor because "#Content" was not working reliably, probably due to <div id="content" class="mw-body" role="main"> which is near the top of every page. Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
My only concern there, aside from the fact that the link doesn't, for me at least, go immediately to the relevant portion of the essay, is that it is linking to an essay. I can already see editors protesting that since it's an essay the ruling doesn't apply and disregarding the fact that the relevant portion of the essay is a link to an RfC. But tiny steps are better than none at all. DonIago (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the guideline issue is a problem, but there can't really be anything stronger for this issue. At least people can use WP:IPCV to find the RfC, although that requires some perseverance because it's in the reference at the end of the first sentence. Re the link: shortcuts which link to a section require that scripting be enabled in the browser. For example, WP:NOTHOWTO links to here, but your browser needs scripting enabled for that to work. Johnuniq (talk) 09:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality, DonIago, Johnuniq: I attempted an RfC which was largely ignored. It did, however, produce a useful conclusion (for me) that an example in an article should have sources cited that not only establish its verifiability, but also discuss it in the context of the article's topic. If you ever list it for RfC let me know. In the meantime you can use the templates {{Refexample}} and {{Better source example}} which link to the archived Wikipedia talk:Verifiability RfC. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I've been using {{In popular culture}} with regards to IPC lists that have insufficient sourcing to date, but I can see how these might be useful options. DonIago (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia in popular culture[edit]

Do we have an article like this somewhere for keeping track of references to Wikipedia in other media, particularly in many-episode TV series?

Even if this is an area that it not deemed noteworthy enough for a main article space, it seems like something we could do here in the Wikipedia section.

For example in "Un-vetted" the star Blythe Baxter comments "I knew I should have cross-checked factopedia", clearly parodying Wikipedia, when she believes Mona Autumn spent a year in the mountains, but it turns out she never came and just sent her assistant who stayed less than an hour. Little Charmers also has the protagonists consult "Spellipedia". We could separate references like this which use similar names indirectly referencing Wikipedia from other references which directly cite it without changing the name. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)