Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Popular Culture/Archive 2

Improvements

Alright, this is starting to look like a real project! If you haven't noticed, I added a project infobox, assessment banner, and a new professional-looking userbox. Hope you don't mind, Father Goose, I edited your pic since it wasn't being used anywhere else, and removed the shadow cuz it didn't match the color of the banner. I think it was the best choice... colorful yet simple, and representative of this project. I've tested everything to make sure it all works, and after some bot gets done doing whatever it does, we can add an article stats table like you see on the other projects. I think thats it, now we just need to get out there and tag some articles... and please assess them when you do! Don't just leave them blank, please. On that note, if you're bored read another edition of As Wikipedia Turns. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

When placing the template, do we assess the article as a whole, or do we assess just the content that falls within the scope of our wikiproject? In some cases, these may be two different things. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 11:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, thats a good question. Not real sure about that one. I would guess you should take the whole article into consideration. If the article is listed as a Good Article, yet the pop culture section needs improvement, then I wouldn't think you should tag it as a Start class article. Perhaps we should only tag articles that are completely dedicated to popular culture, and just list articles with small sections on the project page. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be my preference, at least initially. In the long run, I think we should focus on trying to spin out medium-size and larger pop-culture sections so as to get them "out of the hair" of those that dislike them. Given that they can grow very large, this is generally the right thing to do per WP:SS anyway. Some articles (such as wedgie or Interweb) may be predominantly about the subject's pop-culture presence; these should not be split, and can be tagged with the project banner.

My initial thinking on quality assessment:

• "Stub" is for very rudimentary, incomplete IPC lists
• "Start" for reasonably complete lists
• "B" for well-organized, well-written lists that have a prose lead giving an overview of the subject, with all facts properly cited (descriptions of primary sources can be treated as an implicit citation of the primary source -- but if it's a TV show, for instance, the specific episode(s) containing the references must be listed); also non-list articles meeting the same criteria
• GA and/or "A"; as above, but get it as close to WP:WIAFL or WP:FACR standards as possible

--Father Goose (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As regards our WP1.0 assessment page and category, is it possible to remove "trivia" from its name? We work on trivia-type information, but not trivia articles, as they should not exist.--Father Goose (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I suppose it is certainly possible, but it is the name of our project. If we wanted to remove the Trivia from our category and such, we probably would need to rename our entire project to reflect this change. And then move everything to the new name, otherwise, I'm pretty sure it has to match your project name. On another note, I already tagged all the pages listed for improvement. If anybody knows how we can get a bot to tag the entire category of "in popular culture" please do so because otherwise it will be a lot of tedious work. I also assesed the articles based on their importance. More general topics such as "pirates in pop culture" I gave higher importance than more specific articles such as "blackbeard in pop culture". The bot will update the stats every night, so its listing only one right now, but that will change. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the assessment category/page automatically derived from our project's name? In that case, I wouldn't change anything, but if it's manually-entered, I'd choose to remove "trivia" from the article assessment stuff for the reasons given above (it is a portion of our goals but, being a type of content and not a type of article, is not subject to assessment).--Father Goose (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Category:Articles with trivia sections does more than an adequate job of keeping track of articles with trivia sections, and we wouldn't need to duplicate those categories. We will likely only be assessing Foobar in popular culture type articles and articles with significantly long IPC lists. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I really would suggest changing the name. Every other project has assessment categories which match their names. Changing the name of the assessment categories as far as I know (I haven't asked anyone) is possible. They are indeed manually entered, and placing your category in the WP1.0 assessment category automatically alerts the bot to scan the subcategories for pages. However, changing the name of the assessment category might create some confusion and would require changes to the project banner and everything else. As I said, every other project has categories matching their name. If our main focus is pop culture, I don't see why we shouldn't reflect this focus in the name anyway. I would be willing to do all the work all over again... I just don't see the point in changing the category if we aren't going to change the project name. I did a little reading, and projects merge and change names all the time, so I can easily change everything over to the new name. And since we haven't tagged that many articles yet, it would be MUCH easier to do it now, before we get in too deep. Also, if we're not going to be "Trivia" anymore I don't know if we should keep the same icon either. But thats just me. It seems the Penguin and the Goose are the founding members of this project, so I'm not going to go around changing anything unless these two guys are on board. But if you ask me, I say we either keep the "Trivia" or change the project name, that would make the most sense. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a big deal to me (in fact, it seems trivial) but I don't like the "trivia" in the title anyway. As the discussions on this page show, "trivia" isn't an accurate term for the content dealt with. –Pomte 03:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, I agree to a project name change, but I'd like to keep the "trivia salvage" task as part of the project. It may be dormant for now, but it's still an important task I hope will be revived. The AfDs get the most attention because of the urgency of a deletion discussion, but there are some really nice trivia sections out there that should never have been deleted. Amongst them are "Cultural references"-type sections (references made by the subject of the article to other cultural subjects, instead of references by other subjects to the article's subject). I'd say those are definitely in the "pop culture" scope.--Father Goose (talk) 07:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there is already a project devoted to trivia anyway, regardless of whether or not they have the same goals as we do, they're already taking care of it. We really don't have enough members to be spreading our efforts so thin. I think focusing on "in pop culture" would be best, and hopefully we can attract new members through our banner. Do you think we should keep the trivial pursuit icon? I think it still says "pop culture" so I'd be willing to keep it... that and I'm lazy! Mmmkay, well if nobody else objects I'll take care of everything tomorrow... soon we will be WikiProject Popular Culture! Er... or WikiProject In Popular Culture? Dammit, I wish I didn't overthink everything. Thats what Wikipedia does to a person, you get so used to being nitpicked you start to nitpick yourself without thinking about it. Sigh... --ErgoSum88 (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hahahaha.

You're doing it wrong!

But seriously, I think the Trivial Pursuit icon's still good for our purposes, and "WikiProject Popular Culture" is fine too.--Father Goose (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

lol, Thank you... someone slap me with a trout. Anyway, I guess nothing is going to change but our name. We can still do trivia improvment, and we're going to leave the references to trivia in our project goals and such. We're just going to concentrate on pop culture. BTW, I agree with you about the "list-class" articles, however, the option is still there to use it. If an article is never going to progess past a list (such as articles with "list" in the title) I think it should be used. Also, non-article pages such as categories and disambiguation pages can be tagged, and their importance should be listed as NA, in case anyone was wondering. Well, I have a GA review to attend to, so I'll take care of this later. Wish me luck! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

OK everything is done. I must say I like the new name. Regardless of our opinions about "trivia" I think we are better off without the word in our title. Pop culture is "trivial" enough without getting grouped with actual trivia. Speaking of trivia, it seems Aditya found an article named Kolkata trivia (aka Calcutta). I suppose they DO exist, although I can never seem to find them, considering they are HUGE targets for deletion. Although if you read the Kolkata article you will see all the same information adequately integrated. I don't think there is much we can do for it except try to think of a better name for it. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The project banner can be adjusted in such a way as to add material indicating existence of a trivia section, quality of a trivia section, etc. It's not real easy, but it is doable. Regarding assessment, generally that's for the article as a whole. However, I know some projects rate only relative to content regarding their subject, so that's permittable as well. We just have to make clear somewhere what the specific parameters for the various assessment grades for this project are. John Carter (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I think I know what you're taking about. Project India has something like that, an optional parameter which produces an additional assessment class for Indian History. Instead of having a seperate banner for Project Indian history, they both use the same banner. Thanks for the info. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

User:MiszaBot II

I beleive that the wikiproject is improving since you have a banner, an assessment drive, target articles for improvements and deletion notifications. Why not an automatic talkpage archiver?--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally dislike robot-archiving except for absurdly active pages. Not that I oppose it, I just prefer hand-archiving.--Father Goose (talk) 06:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Quality control

One of my biggest gripes about in pop cult sections and arts of the past is the veritable ad hoc adding of items with no order or sense - like 'oh jim blow was in a tv show and he looked like x' and added as the odd editor came along and had a thought about it, and then another would. The other thing is also the extraordinarily high rate of items that are in culture in the United States and possibley nowhere else in the planet but there would be no qualification of that as such - as a consequence I am about to put a section in the project page that addresses that - cheers SatuSuro 04:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

While you bring up some good points, for future reference, you might want to bring any major edits to the attention of project members before you go around editing their scopes and goals. It is generally considered bad form to make changes to project pages without discussing them first. Since the essence of a project is collaboration between a group of editors, changes or additions should not be made without group consensus. Also, adding phrases such as "...for this project to have any credibility it must address..." might be taken as an insult to project members.

That being said, you bring up some valid concerns. Yes, popular culture articles are US-centric, poorly thrown-together collections of lists with no organization or prose. This is one of the many problems with Wikipedia, articles like these lack any focus and generally are created by hundreds of people randomly adding their two cents. I agree with your edits, but I made some changes... no big deal and no harm done. I appreciate your interest and I invite you to add your name to the member list. Thanks! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

OK apologies for the edit before consult - point taken SatuSuro 10:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Duress code

Hi folks, I figured this was a pretty prominent plot device and there should be some refs out there for it, I reverted the pop culture bits removal and suggested 3 weeks was an adequate timespan to find some material or otherwise improve the section. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've cut it down to just the one example: S5E04 of 24, where it's specifically labelled as one. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Rewrote Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles

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 the essay Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles. Please compare the new version with the old and make some comments. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 15:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Similar project

Please also note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies/Cultural depictions of core biography figures. I think we should have a "see also" section on our project for theirs and perhaps on their project for ours? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

FAR

Scooby-Doo has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ultra! 15:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Article improvement drive

Now that most of the X in popular culture type article have been tagged and given a rough assessment, the time has come to start sorting through what we've got and figure out what to do with it. There are more than a handful that would be best written as prose and merged back into the original. There are even a few that would good AfD candidates, but in most of those cases I think it would be better to merge/redirect.

With most of the articles, the big problem is that they need a major cleanup. Simple improvements include removing nonnotable and duplicate entries, grouping items by type, roughly organizing the article by importance/area of most influence, and reassessing the article on the quality and importance scales. More indepth improvements include expanding and improving lede sections, adding pictures, citations, wikilinking, eliminated maintenance tags, and converting lists into prose.

We should also work on getting more articles to GA status. Currently there are Black Swan emblems and popular culture and Cultural depictions of spiders as GAs, but Jayne Mansfield in popular culture is currently nominated for GA. Maybe we can pick a few top importance articles and turn them into really good examples of quality pop culture articles. Suggestions? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Lions in popular culture looks like a promising GA or perhaps even FA. You might consider collaborating with Wikipedia:WikiProject Cats. I also suggest that you move this back to Cultural depictions of lions.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If you check my edit history for today, you'll notice that I went through practically the whole category making at least a few improvements to each article. Also, I came upon a source (Alain Boureau, Satan the Heretic: the Birth of Demonology in the Medieval West. Translated by Teresa Lavender Fagan. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2006. xiii + 255 pp. Notes, bibliography, and index. $30.00 U.S. (cl). ISBN 0-226-06748-3.) that could maybe be used for Satan or Demonology in popuar culture topics. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

After adding project banners to all of the pages listed on the project front page, they are on my watchlist and when I logged in this evening I noticed my list was covered with your name! I've also noticed the Penguin doing lots of project work lately, and I think you both deserve a pat on the back for the effort you both have put into improving articles. If I ever get the time, I'll design a Pop Culture Barnstar and award it to you both. In the meantime, thanks for all the hard work and keep it up. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A WPPC barnstar?--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A barnstar is a great idea! Also, I'm not sure if we have any coverage on racism in popular culture, but here's a relevant source: James W. Loewen, "American Culture Typically Locates Racism in the South," Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension of America Racism (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2005), 194-198. The section of the rather lengthy book discusses various films and their depiction or lack of therefore of "sundown" towns. He writes, "Take Grosse Pointe Blank, for example, a 1997 John Cussack vehicle. This film...fails to tell that Grosse Pointe was all-white on purpose throughout the era it depicts..." (pg 196), not exactly a valid criticism of the film in my opinion as it just doesn't seem what the film was about, but nevertheless the pages could be used as reliable secondary source reference on an article on Racism in popular culture. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad everyone thinks a barnstar is a good idea, and if anyone has any interesting graphics to share, please do. Although after the banner icon search, I doubt if there is anything left we haven't scavenged, and I'm thinking about just slapping the trivial pursuit color wheel on a barnstar. But I would like it to be different if possible. Also I was wondering if anyone knows if the icon we are using is trademarked?? I hadn't thought of that until now, but it would behoove someone to find out before we get scolded. I did a search on google but couldn't find anything off the bat cuz I'm in a hurry and I gotta get my ass to work. See you guys later. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 10:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

How about a barnstar with each of the arms representing a color from the trivial pursuit icon.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. By the way I made a bunch more revisions at this article currently under discussion. Hopefully those who posted deletes prior to the new changes will reconsider. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

PRODs

A few articles were PRODed today. I removed the tag from some notable ones, but they will probably be listed soon:

• List of shapeshifters in myth and fiction
• New York City Subway in popular culture
• Nineteen Eighty-Four in popular media
• Doomsday devices in popular culture
• Sonic weaponry in popular culture

Other less notable ones I left the PROD momentarily to see what others thought:

• Tallahassee in popular culture
• Of Mice and Men in popular culture
• Rhode Island in popular culture
• Póvoa de Varzim in popular culture
• Salamander (legendary creature) in popular culture
• Shaolin in popular culture
• Leopold and Loeb in popular culture
• Samson in popular culture

We should probably notify other wikiprojects etc. too. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

excise

the use of the word excise seems a bit odd in the first line of the principles. Machete97 (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's the second definition that is being used here: "To cut out; to remove".--Father Goose (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Scope

Does/should our project here also cover popular culture or fictional timelines like Alien and Predator timeline or other list formatted articles, what about such things as List of Dragon Quest VIII characters, which are characters that appear both as toys and video games and so have a bit wider popular culture significance than say just for a video game wikiproject? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The scope of this project remains difficult to pin down. Doomsday devices in popular culture (which recently survived AfD) raises similar issues, as its subject is really doomsday devices in fiction. I think the scope questions center on the fact that the material we've been trying to rescue and improve is not defined by its subject as much as by its format: collections of instances of (or references to) subject across a variety of media.

Obviously those of us working on the project feel such information is of value. In a number of cases the "cultural uses of" a subject are the very thing that gives it its significance (such as, say, redshirt (character)). In other cases, a subject may have great significance unto itself, but also a profound influence on other subjects (such as nearly all of Shakespeare's work).

I'd say we're still fumbling around, trying to figure out the best way to present this material. And I've rambled, instead of answering your question. But it's a question that keeps coming up: what is our core material, and what direction do we hope to take it in (beyond just saving it from deletion)?--Father Goose (talk) 05:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That is true, we seem to be trying to save information from "death by formatting". But in salvaging the information, more often than not all we are doing is just displaying it in a slightly different and more acceptable way. I see some of this WikiProject's goal to be to affect the tides of concensus, and demonstrate that there are organized users who both enjoy this type of content and are willing to do some work to keep it here. And at the same time, to be honest with ourselves, we all have to admit that there are cases when the information really is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.

To answer the original question more specifically: you don't need to wave a project banner for every edit you want to make. If you personally feel some information is worthwhile, then fight to keep it, and possibly let others know about it. But that certainly doesn't mean that everyone will come out on your side of the issue, and it doesn't mean that every fight will be won. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 14:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Jayne Mansfield in popular culture

This article has received a GA review, but it is on hold pending improvements. Let's get this article to GA status. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Magical negro

The other day, somehow I found myself at the article "Magic negro" which had no projects attached and seemed like a good addition to our scope. It is well-sourced and doesn't seem to need any improvements at this time, but I thought it was interesting and IPC-related so I'm putting it out there if anybody wants to attempt some improvements. Btw, I haven't started working on an IPC barnstar but don't worry I haven't forgotten about it, I might start on it tomorrow. Happy editing, and I know it's early but Merry Independence Day!!! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I love that term. I was first introduced to it by the TV Tropes wiki (which, by the way, is a better encyclopedia of pop culture than we will ever be permitted to be).--Father Goose (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheshire Cat AfD closure

Please note that two editors have questioned the close, but were not answered by the deleting admin. Therefore, I recommend that a member of this project initiate a Wikipedia:Deletion review. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: When the DRV closes as overturn as no consensus or overturn as merge and redirect, please note List of characters in American McGee's Alice#The Cheshire Cat, which has additional information and image we could use for either further improvements, a "see also," or merger. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I want to join

I want to join because I know that Pencak Silat has a lot of pop culture references. Angie Y. (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

All you have to do is add your name to this list on the main page. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 04:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

And you don't even have to join formally; if the work you do aligns with the project's goals, it doesn't matter if your name is on some list or not. But it's nice to pledge your support all the same.--Father Goose (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonic the Hedgehog (American TV and Comic)

The above discussion concerning a topic covered in David Mansour, "Sonic the Hedgehog," From Abba to Zoom: A Pop Culture Encyclopedia Of The Late 20th Century (Andrews McMeel Publishing, 2005), 450, has closed with the deleting admin suggesting a merge discussion continue at Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (character)#Proposed merge. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: I have updated the project template to accept the new assessment class "C" parameter. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

IPC cleanup template

I think it would be a good idea to create an IPC cleanup template, especially one that linked to the IPC essay. It would help raise awareness of the essay's reccomendations, and perhaps this Wikiproject as well. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 05:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The easy way to go about it would be to copy the other cleanup templates and just change the text. Then you could list it next to the others on the Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup#Cleanup_of_specific_subjects page. Its all pretty easy... the hard part is, what do you think it should say? --ErgoSum88 (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

xkcd

This xkcd cartoon was pretty funny... but after someone decided to add a link to this cartoon in the article Popular culture, an admin came along, reverted, and semi-protected the page. I thought the admin went a little overboard with these actions. Some editors abhor webcomics and "internet culture" in general, so this doesn't surprise me. I think the comic is hilarious, I laughed for a good minute. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Water in popular culture

I just noticed User:JohnnyMrNinja/Water in popular culture. Apparently it's actually the subject of a college course!! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Somebody's bound to put that up for Courses for Deletion one of these days...--Father Goose (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That made me laugh really hard. But LeGrand has a point, this is clearly a notable subject, and I can't see why it should exist in an article or section, as ludicrous as this example article is. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 23:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

One idea might be to at least start an article with some of the notable meanings of water in various mythologies and things like dream interpretation and go from there. John Carter (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. There are a million completely appropriate examples and subjects that can be included on a variety of articles. The water article could even use such a split to reduce it's length. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion

An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - , member of WikiProject Council. 14:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Still discovering Good articles

So I was looking at some Good articles today, and I discovered another untagged GA class IPC article, Est and The Forum in popular culture. I'm too lazy to tag it right now, but this is showing there's still lots of good content out there we haven't found. We can't improve something we don't know is there. Does anyone have any efficient suggestions for how to do a search for pages starting with "Wikipedia Talk:" and ending with "in popular culture"? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 23:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Put site:en.wikipedia.org intitle:"popular culture" intitle:"wikipedia talk" in the Google search bar. I'm not sure those are the exact results you want, however, but you can modify it as needed.--Father Goose (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible merger to create a really good article?

Hi all, I pondered on something Will Oakland said and wondered whether merging Doomsday films and Doomsday devices in popular culture into Doomsday device might be a good idea to make a meaty article capable of going to GA or FAC at some stage (with maybe a list of films being spun out at some stage), as given the concept of a doomsday deveice is in part fictional, isnt having an IPC article somewhat tautological? I created a merge template as I figured if done with care by people actually interested then info can be saved and improved rather than redirected. Just thorwing up the idea (figuratively) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry guys, i made this a sticky as Will Oakland is trying to redirect it. Anyone have any input? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that a merger would be the best way to go with the content, though it's not a project I choose to put at the top of my list at this time. WP:TIND. I also think overwriting it with a redirect is just another way of deleting it, for which there was no consensus at the AfD.--Father Goose (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 282 articles are assigned to this project, of which 131, or 46.5%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:

{{User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription|banner=WikiProject Popular Culture}}

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Catsuits in popular culture up for deletion

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catsuits in popular culture for concerns. Banjeboi 08:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Update. I have been trying to improve the article to a respectable stature. But, my sluggish connections and real life interfered. Also, I'll be inactive for some 30 hours. Can someone, please, take a look at the article now (along with the debate) and lend a hand to improve it further? Barbarella, the Borg catsuits (especially of Seven-of-Nine), Catwoman and Spice Girls catsuits should be easy enough. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

WOW!!

Looks like the entire St. James Encyclopedia of Pop Culture is available online here. Care to check anyone? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice.--Father Goose (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: New article

I have split Bikini in popular culture from the Bikini article. As you can guess, the article have quite a few kinks due to the split. These needs to be ironed out. There also is huge scope for expansion. Is it possible to request a few more helping hands to develop the article? A months work or so, and we easily could have a GA. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I will fix the kinks right away. --Oh no! it's Alien joe!(Talk) 21:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for WikiProject Popular Culture

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Half-smoke

Hello, I am looking for some advise on a sub section I recently created, and was deleted, from this article. This is my single edit to the article in question. It involves President-elect Obama not knowing what the half-smoke was and Bill Cosby joking he would take his vote back b/c of it. I think some the members of this WikiProject might be able to offer me some advise as to whether or not this information is pertinent. To be clear I'm not looking for an "Attaboy" or a rubber stamp but serious consideration as to if this adds to the article or not. As a note I now realize I should have called the sub-section "In popular culture" a mistake I won't repeat in the future. Thanks Naufana : talk 02:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, well I wouldn't necessarily label this issue as pertaining to pop culture but perhaps we can be of assistance nevertheless. Also, naming the section "In popular culture" is a sure-fire way to have that section swiftly deleted, so I would avoid using the words "popular culture" at all cost. Try to think of a more neutral way to present the information, although the damage has already been done in this case, and you will most likely need to put up a fight if you really want this information presented in the half-smoke article. I'm sort of on the fence with this one... I wouldn't call this information "trivial" but its not exactly "pertinent". The fact that Obama didn't know what a half-smoke was isn't exactly headline news... on the other hand, I'm the type of editor who thinks that if a subject is (1) in itself trivial or (2) lacking an abundance of usable information, then it should be ok to include this type of info. After all, how much can be said about the half smoke? This info may be trivial in the grand scheme of Obama's life, but to the half-smoke's life, this mention is definitely noteworthy. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Where oh where has my trivia section gone?

Has everyone read this page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trivia_and_Popular_Culture/Discussion

Here are some interesting external web sites concering trivia.

http://www.neatorama.com/2008/03/22/wikipedias-identity-crisis-keep-or-delete-trivia/

http://billso.com/2008/03/18/should-wikipedia-include-trivia/

http://www.economist.com/search/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354

http://www.economist.com/search/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354&mode=comment&intent=readBottom

http://www.economist.com/search/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354&mode=comment&intent=readBottom

http://www.includipedia.com/blog/2008/03/10/inclusionists-versus-deletionists-on-wikipedia.html

http://www.includipedia.com/

http://www.includipedia.com/wiki/Includipedia:About

http://www.includipedia.com/wiki/Main_Page

http://blog.shankbone.org/2008/12/22/trivia-section-on-wikipedia--an-american-dad-christmas-illustration.aspx

http://www.impactlab.com/2008/03/24/wikipedia-identity-crisis-part-2-keep-or-delete-trivia/

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080111152140AA8xEth

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiTrivia Ozmaweezer (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

All's quiet on the trivia front

It seems that over the past 4 or 5 months or so, all the excitement about trivia and popular culture seems to have died down, and it looks as if the problem is slowly resolving itself. New wording to {{trivia}} make the template less abrasive and more subtle in it's guidance, and additionally the creation of {{in popular culture}} has created a more problem specific template for certain sections.

However, it seems that while this WikiProject was successful in stemming the giant tide of AfDs and categorical removal, it still stands a long way between making articles acceptable, and making articles flourish. There is still a significant problem with IPC articles that really shouldn't exist, and this lowers the average quality of IPC articles. Quite a few articles under this project's scope should be cleaned up and merged with their parent articles, since the topics often do not meet the criteria for a stand alone article. I'd encourage anyone with some spare time to take a look at this project's Article Statistics, and see if you can improve the overall quality of our scope by integrating unnecessary articles. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 17:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

We could use help improve the following sections:

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

As you can see, at least one editor is willing to edit war even when multiple editors revert him. I would like to see those sections referenced and improved rathaer than outright removed. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

And he's back at it... Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

News and updates

Following the lead of other wikiprojects, I have created an article assessment instructions page. If anyone has an opinion on this page... as always, feel free to make some edits or discuss any changes on the talk page. Also, the old project banner has been replaced by a new metabanner template which simplifies both the coding of new banners and making any new changes to old banners. Happy editing. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:34, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Project scope

I have recently discovered an article - Teardrop tattoo, and oddly enough there is no wikiproject tattoo so I thought it would be a good addition to our scope. Articles such as 555 (telephone number), Urban legend, and such are hard to define as "pop culture" and may well be within the scope of other potential projects which do not currently exist. But I think these are important additions as most of these articles are very notable topics which are usually orphaned (no projects attached) and need a lot of editing help. Merry St. Patrick's Day. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

TOO MANY CAPITAL LETTERS

It seems as if half the time when I find a "popular culture" section, it says

Whatever in Popular Culture

with a capital "P" and a capital "C", in disregard of Wikipedia:Manual of Style, which clear prescribes lower case:

Whatever in popular culture

Now I find there's a WikiProject devoted to popular culture references. Is this project (1) doing something to get people to comply with WP:MOS; or (2) doing something that makes them disregard WP:MOS; or (3) other (specfify)? Michael Hardy (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It is common for WikiProjects to capitalize the name of their project. I checked your contribs and I think your incessant edits of removing capitalized article headers and so on is a complete waste of time which could be put to better use. Not to mention that job could be done by a bot if anyone cared enough about miscapitalization to make one. Perhaps you could? --ErgoSum88 (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You miss the point. I wasn't criticizing the capitalization of the name of the project, but rather: headings within articles.

And you are wrong. Wikipedia:Manual of Style exists. Its existence matters. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

...and I should add: Very many people care about this. Otherwise Wikipedia wouldn't look the way it does. And lots of people use bots to attend to things like this. I'm surprised you didn't know that. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If I didn't know that bots attend to things like this, why would I mention it? Why would you single out editors of "popular culture" articles as ignorant of the MOS? They are no more ignorant than editors of other articles. Besides, the majority of people do not read the MOS (which has conventions that differ from common practices such as capitalizing titles and headers), therefore they do what they think looks best. We do not encourage anyone to violate WP conventions, and like any other WikiProject we exist to improve articles in accordance with the guidelines. If you are unfamiliar with the goals of WikiProjects, perhaps you should check out Wikipedia:WikiProject for more information. Thank you for your interest and I invite you to add your name to the list of members if you regularly edit popular culture articles. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason I "single them out" is precisely what I said above: the high frequency with which I find the all-capital-initials headings. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The answer is (3). We're not trying to "make people comply with the MoS" -- that's not the purpose of this project. When I personally do work on pop-culture sections and articles (and, heck, every other kind of article), I fix capitalization. I expect other project members do as well. But are we poring through Wikipedia's articles, trying to find miscapitalized "pop culture" sections? Not specifically. It doesn't strike me as the most pressing task facing us, or the most effective use of our time. Have you considered trying AWB, if this is a project you personally are interested in undertaking?--Father Goose (talk) 08:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't address the question. I never thought this project should be more attentive than others to these norms. But your answer doesn't explain why these headings far more frequently neglect the style manual than others do.

OK, maybe nobody really knows. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Offhand, I haven't shared your observation that "these headings far more frequently neglect the style manual". But if they do, I assure you it isn't our doing. It sounds like just something that needs fixing by whomever it is that wants to spend the time fixing it.--Father Goose (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It's probably because editors who add "In popular culture" sections to articles tend to be unfamiliar with the MoS. –Pomte 09:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Article bisection

Note Pan and Pan in popular culture, ditto Bugbear, Phoenix (mythology), Redcap, and Knife fight - I am trying to find the policy which states this isn't a good idea, but haven't the time for an MOS search. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: I proposed a merge back of Bugbears in popular culture into Bugbear - discuss at Talk:Bugbear#Merger_proposal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Also Sprites in popular culture into Sprite (creature), join the fun at Talk:Sprite_(creature)#Merger_proposal Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

HMS Pinafore

This article has a Cultural Impact section that I think is a pretty good one, because all of the examples mentioned are very substantial references to the opera - for example, where characters in a TV show sing a song from HMS Pinafore. But it has been attacked by some editors as WP:Trivia. I am about to nominate the article for promotion to Featured Article. Can someone who has experience with WP:Featured Articles help me make a really clean argument that the section is not a collection of trivia, but rather is important information about how the subject has affected popular culture for over 100 years? Or, on the other hand, if you disagree, let me know. Also, if you can think of a way to improve the section so that it reads better, please let me know. Thanks for any help! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Long time no see

I've been so busy with other things, its been a while since I've devoted any time to improving project articles. Anyway, I came across this today: Olly olly oxen free, with a long list of pop culture references and absolutely zero cites. On another note, I've been working on my series of Trucking industry in the United States articles, possibly working my way toward a WP:Featured topic, which means massive amounts of work. One editor suggested that a pop culture article about truckers in the United States would be a welcome addition, seeing as how there should be plenty of third party sources regarding this subject. And he is right, there are plenty of them. So whenver I get a chance I'm going to create the article, my only problem is what to call it. United States truck drivers in popular culture, Cultural depictions of truck drivers (United States), Truck drivers in the United States in popular culture (hmm, too long?), or maybe Truck drivers in popular culture (United States). Anyone got any ideas? --ErgoSum•talk•trib 19:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

popular culture sections

There has been a recent increase in the removal of in popular culture and in fiction sections from numerous articles, along with the rapid nomination of many ipc articles for deletion. I am somewhat puzzled, for I thought we had all reached a consensus that such was accepted as content. Perhaps consensus is changing--or perhaps there is a small dedicated group determined to drive such change during a slow period at Wikipedia. If the general view has changed, then so be it, but I'm not convinced of that.

The best response, of course, is to improve and source this material properly. It won't prevent people for trying to remove them, but it will help convince the community that they ought to stay in. Some of the sections and articles are in urgent need of some work. I've started upgrading, but I cannot do it all. (I did not list here the ones that I thought were altogether hopeless, or too small to bother with at all). It is not argument, but sourcing and fuller content that will do the job.

As for ipc, see the appropriate sections of: (Some of the arguments for removing the sections use the argument that if an article on the ipc was deleted, the section ought not remain at all. )

• Mooncalf
• Imp
• Jet Pack
• Rat king (folklore)
• Mandrake
• Mandragora
• Necromancy
• Naked singularity
• Hypernova
• Brown dwarf

and the AfDs for:

• White holes in fiction
• Dark matter in fiction
• Black holes in fiction

and the recreated article

• Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse in popular culture

DGG (talk) 03:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Trivia questions

I've been googling for free trivia questions, like ones in Trivial Pursuit but haven't found anything significant collection. So I thought, why not put together some as a Wikimedia project, for example as a page in Wikiversity? Or is there already something like that somewhere? Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Bad linking practices: infoboxes and common terms

I'm sure it's no secret that popular music articles, many of which contain references to guitars, are badly overlinked. Common term and generalised linking is now not the normal practice, and need specific rationale. This includes the linking of the general common terms such as "guitar", "singer", "songwriter", "author", "poet", "activist", whether in main text or infobox.

I have been auditing the linking, slowly, in a few popular culture articles. Unfortunately, a member of the guitar WikiProject has been reverting tese audits WRT infoboxes. The reasons given have ranged from:

• "that's the way it's done everywhere" (I note that bad grammar can be found everywhere);
• "saves linking in the main text if it's linked in the infobox" (if it's not good link in the main text, why in the infobox?); and
• "we don't want to have to change hundreds of thousand of articles" (so nothing can ever change on a wiki, even through gradualist gnoming?)

There is also a sense that infoboxes should be carpeted blue for aesthetic reasons: the last is clearly an abuse of wikilinking, which loses its effect if every word is blue. Infoboxes are, in any case, a mixture of black and blue, and always will be. The question becomes to what extent the useful links should stand out rather than being swamped.

A related issue is the style-guide rule discouraging adjacent links, and encouraging specific linking. "Guitar", for example, would be much better unlinked at the top, and if the artist played a certain type of guitar, Guitar#Types of guitars is the better target, in the appropriate section. This is what would help the readers, not a formulaic carpet-bombing of infoboxes with double square brackets. Times have changed.

Apart from going against WP:LINK, this practice is diluting the many important, valuable links in popular culture articles. Among these are, of course, the titles of songs, albums and other artists. These should not be diluted by links that are not useful to an understanding of the topic, and that all English-speakers should know the definition of. (I have unlinked "roses", "divorce", "suicide", and many other dictionary words, as well as the seemingly formulaic "singer", "musician", "artist", "activist", etc.).

I ask that editors take the opportunity to support the cleaning up of the "sea of blue" problem to make wikilinking in popular-culture articles work a lot better for our readers. Tony (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Question about external links to pop culture

A question at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Linking_to_a_wiki_for_pop_culture_references might benefit from the perspective of people at this project. In particular, if a list of pop culture/'trivia' items is inappropriate for the Wikipedia encyclopedia, should it be moved to another website (e.g., Wikia), and if so, should the usual rules about WP:External links be "ignored" to permit a link to the relocated content? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move of History of cats to Cultural depictions of cats

A heads up - I have proposed History of cats be moved to Cultural depictions of cats — This article is really about cat culture and folklore through the ages rather than history per se. I am not saying there shouldn't be an article on the history of cats, but this ain't it. My suggestion would be to move this to Cultural depictions of cats. Additionally I think I have the sources to make it a Good Article one day....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

VP discussion notice

Discussion relevant to the project: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Any_.28reasonable.29_objections.3F --Cybercobra (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

New Member

I'm new to the Project, just thought I'd introduce myself. Sean (talk || contribs) 04:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome.--Father Goose (talk) 06:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome. As you can see, like any project we go through periods of lulls which we seem to be having lately. I have created one project-related article myself (Trucking industry in popular culture (United States)), and have attempted to improve a few others. Anything is appreciated, but making your opinion known and participating in discussions outside of this talk page will help the most. Happy editing. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 22:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

We now have a featured list!

Not that I can take credit for it. I noticed List of cultural references in The Cantos, which definitely falls under this project's scope, so I added it. Yay. We also have the former featured list Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc -- if someone would be willing to clean up the unsourced entries, we could get it back on WP:FL.--Father Goose (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Shinigami in popular culture

Shinigami in popular culture has been nomianted for deletion at AfD 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Satyrs in popular culture

Satyrs in popular culture has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 06:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Tang in popular culture

Tang in popular culture has been nominated for deletion. It was recently split from the main article. 70.29.210.174 (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Featured list review notice

I have nominated List of cultural references in The Cantos for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Gimme danger (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Vercingetorix in popular culture

Vercingetorix in popular culture has been prodded for deletion 70.29.208.69 (talk) 03:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Icons

New article Icons of American culture, as yet just a stub, is in need of feedback: comments and contributions from anyone interested. ProfDEH (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Silver Surfer

Silver Surfer has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Tom B (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

DeLorean time machine

FYI, DeLorean time machine has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Mary Celeste in popular culture

FYI, Mary Celeste in popular culture has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review discussion - Category:Worst Picture Golden Raspberry Award winners

Deletion review discussion regarding Golden Raspberry Award winners, please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 1. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

USS Indianapolis in popular culture

USS Indianapolis in popular culture has been nominated for deletion. 65.93.13.227 (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aldebaran in fiction

Also nominated Fomalhaut, Alpha Centauri, Sirius, Epsilon Eridani and several others. All opinions welcome. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 13:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moose knuckle

This term has plenty of sources, is found in prestigious magazines, and is used by popular authors, as well as being the name of a mixed drink. μηδείς (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC on WP:WPACT, trivia and popular culture sections in car and motorcycle articles

Please comment on RfC on WP:WPACT, trivia and popular culture sections in car and motorcycle articles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Popular Culture/Archive 2/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Popular Culture/Archive 2/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 00:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Smuggling in literature

Needs cites - maybe a broadening of scope to Smuggling in fiction? See talk. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Slogans

I note a couple of articules have just been put up for AfD related to slogans used by two leading Australian TV stations. I think it belongs here. The articles need refs and citations etc but I think they can be fixed. They are:

• List of Network Ten slogans
• List of Nine Network slogans

Do they belong here? AWHS (talk) 11:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Popular Culture articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Popular Culture articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Korea/Popular culture

Is this wikiproject related to the task force WP:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture ? 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of "In popular culture section" in Numbers station

Crossmr (talk) removed the entire "in popular culture" section in the article Numbers station, with an edit that it was mere "trivia". I restored it with a note that it was not "trivia" but appeared to be acceptible content under Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. Crossmr removed it again and accused me of edit warring and violating all sort of rules. It seems to me that this content was interesting and something that readers might look for in that article. I don't much feel like getting into the minutia of this, but if anyone cares to comment on this you can at Talk:Numbers station#Removal of "In popular culture section". Ecphora (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Effort to delete entry and entire section Chinese_room#Popular_culture from article Chinese room

There is a discussion about deleting a reference to the Futurama episode Rebirth from the popular culture section of the article Chinese room.*

An editor who admits s/he has not seen the Futurama episode, and who admits s/he is critical of the Chinese room argument, repeatedly removed the entry. S/he filed an RfC which has generated comments by several editors saying the popular culture section should be removed entirely. Complaint has been made that quoting the dialog verbatim amounts to OR, even though WP policy holds fictional works may serve as the source of their own content.

My opinion is that:

this is an example of editorial distaste,

• that an allusion does not need to be explicit to be an allusion,
• that the verbatim quote is accurate, verifiable, and neutrally presented, and
• that hostility toward popular culture entries in general is not an appropriate reason deleting this material.

I think readers can decide for themselves whether to read this material.

Editors can comment on the RfC discussion here.

--- *The Chinese room argument deals with whether computer programs simulating a person well enough can actual be said to constitute real conscious minds. In the Futurama episode, Leela is killed and a computer simulation of her personality is created. (A clip of her simulation is available here at comedy central - unfortunately I can only find the full episode at websites like tvshack.) Subsequent to Robot-Leela's creation and the moral dilemmas it creates the question arises whether she really has a mind or is just a simulation, and the robot Leela alludes to the dilemma, asking "Am I just an automaton, or can a machine of sufficient complexity legitimately achieve consciousness?" ---

μηδείς (talk) 01:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

μηδείς, do you understand the distinction between alluding to the question of artificial consciousness and alluding to the Chinese Room argument? Dlabtot (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Alleyway

The usage of alleyway is under discussion, see Talk:Alleyway#Requested_move -- 65.95.14.34 (talk) 08:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Animal Farm

Additional opinions are requested here. Thank you for your help. Doniago (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the additional requested opinions are not on the mettle of the topic's place in Popular Culture, but a personal vendetta by Doniago to be a final arbiter of what goes on Wikipedia and what doesn't. JesseRafe (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Antichrist....

has a pop culture section needing referencing too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

References needed

For Nuclear_holocaust#Nuclear_holocaust_in_popular_culture - gotta be notable, surely...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ditto pop culture bits and pieces in Édith Piaf Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Whole-body_transplant#Whole-body_transplants_in_popular_culture Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Animal Farm in Popular Culture (redux)

As before, additional opinions are requested here regarding the criteria for inclusion in a popular culture list article. Thank you for your feedback. Doniago (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Popular Culture references in Honky-tonk

Please add your comments and support for Popular Culture references (not trivia!) in this article at Talk:Honky-tonk#Cultural references/Trivia section. Wahrmund (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Coyotes in popular culture

For anyone interested, Coyotes in popular culture is an article rife with unsourced list items. I've tagged it accordingly today, and will give it at least a couple of months before I take any action on existing items. Doniago (talk) 03:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal of a WikiProject

I'm proposing a wikiproject to cover fictional lists, since this covers fictional things, every article in the scope of this wikiproject would also fall under Popular Culture. I was hoping maybe some of you here might be interested in the proposal, maybe you have some suggestions and hopefully some of you might like to help out and sign up. Thanks! Ncboy2010 (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Pop Culture in McRib

You are invited to participate in the discussion of pop culture in the McRib article at Talk:McRib#Significance_of_items_in_pop_culture.—Bagumba (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Zombie article scope discussion

There is currently a discussion on Talk:Zombie (fictional) regarding article scope. The result may lead move and/or merge proposals for this article and Zombie. This flows from a failed move proposal archived at Talk:Zombie. Zombie (fictional) is a high importance article to this project and receives many hits, so I'm posting this notice as an FYI to interested editors as currently there are only two of us sorting this out. LaTeeDa (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not a member of this WikiProject...

...so can anybody tell me why on my user page I have a category saying that I am? Is this a result of a userbox or something of that nature?
RedSoxFan274 _{(leave a message~contribs)} 04:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

User:ErgoSum88/trivia --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yes, I do have this userbox in my "Wikipedia philosophies" userbox section. However, does it have to link directly to the category for this project? Shouldn't it be obvious that some users would support the inclusion of trivia/in popular culture, and thus use that userbox proclaiming that they do so, even if they have nothing to do with this WikiProject? Maybe, unless you already have one, you should make the more common type of WikiProject userbox, for ex., "This user is a member of WikiProject ... " and link that to the category of WikiProject Popular Culture users.
Thanks,

RedSoxFan274 _{(leave a message~contribs)} 07:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

What standard for inclusion of an example of something in popular culture?

For example, take Vampires in popular culture. Suppose I'm editing that article, and I want to add an example of a video game about vampires. Do I need to cite a reliable source? (Obviously, video games tend not to be "reliable sources".) 150.135.161.45 (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI: So that everyone can view the history of this discussion, it can be found at Talk:Incest in popular culture#Proposed Addition of a New Section where the user wants to add a forum listing. They fail to grasp the fundamental difference in using examples which contain only user-created content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Suppose that I want to add an example of a discussion forum about vampires. Do I need to cite a reliable source? (Obviously, discussion forums tend not to be "reliable sources".) 150.135.161.45 (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

YES!!! See also WP:IDHT. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

(Calm down?) 150.135.161.45 (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] As a rule, I am most convinced when I see a third party source that takes note of the pop culture reference and gives a reason why it mattered. So if you watch the film Top Gun and notice the motorcycle Tom Cruise rides is a Kawasaki GPZ900R, well, so what? Your only source is the film itself, not a third party. That's basically all you've got from the source Trivia for Top Gun, IMDb.com, 2009. However, the article Kawasaki GPZ900R goes beyond just the film. It cites:

• Brandweek (April 21, 2008), "Kawasaki's new top gun.(Case Study: Stories from the Front Lines of Marketing)", Brandweek, vol. 49, no. 16, The Nielson Company, p. 18
• Christian Science Monitor, The (September 30, 2005), "Motorcycle safety schools see boomer boomlet; Motorcycle-safety schools are ballooning as baby boomers tap into their Harley fantasies", The Christian Science Monitor, p. 11
• Gingerelli, Dain; Everitt, Charles; Michels, James Manning (2011), 365 Motorcycles You Must Ride, MBI Publishing Company, p. 94, ISBN 0-7603-3474-9, retrieved May 6, 2012

What makes this one a slam dunk is that it includes not one but two sources which are neither film related (IMDB) nor motorcycle-related (365 Motorcycles You Must Ride). Brandweek and The Christian Science Monitor are not specialized in the subject and so are unlikely to tell us the make and model of a motorcycle in a film unless there is good reason to care. And these sources actually give specific reasons why this motorcycle in this movie mattered, that it changed the direction of the public perception of motorcycles and created a the iconic image of Tom Cruise on his Japanese superbike.

A counterexample would be The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo; the book and the two films made from it all featured a motorcycle, but in each version a different kind of bike was used, and no note was taken of it other than by film and motorcycle buffs. The fact that Lisbeth Salander rides a motorcycle at all is important to the character and the plot, but which particular bike is of little consequence. It's unimportant trivia.

You can get away with weaker sourcing than we see on Kawasaki GPZ900R, but personally I wouldn't bother. When I see third party sources that aren't genre-specific, I know I've got a solid addition to the encyclopedia. You can sneak things in with less but don't be surprised if it gets deleted right away, or in six months or a year. And then you would have wasted your time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Americana

I got the Americana page to a reasonable state of consistency by weeding out all the examples, relevant and otherwise, to provide a reasonable guide to what the term means and encompasses. Now, an editor is adding what I consider to be unbalanced and misleading material, making a case for including what may be completely wrong examples, certainly not sufficiently typical or iconic. An obsession with Lana Del Rey and David Lynch seems to underpin this. Help needed to sort this out. ProfDEH (talk) 06:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Fictional pinnipeds

I didn't want to just start editing the "Fictional pinnipeds" articles without approval, but I'd like to point out some characters that I'm surprised weren't mentioned there: Rotor (from the "Sonic The Hedgehog" series), a fictional walrus, Gomamon and his digivolution line (which are all seal/walrus based) in the "Digimon" series, and Sealia (also from "Sonic") and Sully ("Danger Rangers"), both seals.

MadeInTheShade (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of elephants

We're currently fixing the Cultural depictions of elephants let's make it a GA article in the same vein as Cultural depictions of spiders!--Lenticel ^(talk) 10:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing, but didn't know where to say it. — I'm currently taking a short break, and was hoping that some WP:elves might polish things up in my absence. We could use some fresh eyeballs on the article. What is especially needed is sourcing on some stuff that's already there.

~Thanks, your vacationing construction crew, ~Eric F : 74.60.29.141 (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Developing header sections of "listish" articles

FYI, I just mentioned this project on Talk:Shinto in popular culture. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Shinto in popular culture

The coverage of the article Shinto in popular culture is under discussion at talk:Shinto in popular culture -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Human–goat sexual intercourse - deletion discussion ongoing

• Human–goat sexual intercourse

Deletion discussion ongoing about whether or not this article page should exist.

Please see deletion discussion page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human–goat sexual intercourse, if you wish to voice your opinion. — Cirt (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Fuck (film), freedom of speech-related quality improvement project

• Fuck (film)

As part of a quality improvement project on a topic related to freedom of speech, I've greatly expanded upon and improved the quality of the article at page, Fuck (film). Any further suggestions for additional secondary sources and referencing would be appreciated, at the article's talk page. — Cirt (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Underground culture

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Underground culture has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Fuck peer review

1. Fuck (film)
2. Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck (film)/archive1

I've listed the article Fuck (film) for peer review.

Help with furthering along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck (film)/archive1.

— Cirt (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy Warhol's imagine of Jackie Kennedy mourning at John F. Kennedy's funereal.jpg

image:Andy Warhol's imagine of Jackie Kennedy mourning at John F. Kennedy's funereal.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Rfc at Hookup Culture

There is currently two RfC's at Talk:Hookup culture (which is also being considered for deletion here), that would benefit from community participation.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Gojira

The usage of Gojira is under discussion, see talk:Gojira#Requested move 2 -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 10:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Horrible Histories

Hi. We're having a discussion on the fate of Horrible Histories TV show at: Horrible Histories (2009 TV series)#Moving on. As a relevant Wikiproject, we would greatly appreciate it if you would voice your opinion on the talk page, or to have a crack at editing and improving it. Thankyou for your time. :)--Coin945 (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Template:Gestures

Dear Wikipedians,

I would like to propose -- here as to avoid the talk-page of the template which seems quite unused -- the Inclusion of the Article [Prostration] in logical consequence as it being the most formal gesture (in western thought) after genuflection and bow. The article could, I believe, also use some expansion in regards to the use of prostration in European contexts which I am unable to provide as my knowledge is anecdotal.

Sincerely --79.195.115.134 (talk) 13:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Compact Cassette Logo.svg

image:Compact Cassette Logo.svg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The world's most northerly ATM machine.jpg

image:The world's most northerly ATM machine.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Flag of Anonymous.jpeg

image:Flag of Anonymous.jpeg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Fuck featured article candidate discussion

• Fuck (film)

Fuck (film) is a candidate for Featured Article quality — comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Re-assessment request

Where does one go to request a re-assessment of an article within this project's purview?   Here?  Okay...
Cultural depictions of elephants has recently undergone a major overhaul, and is likely to achieve a higher rating. In any case, additional input from a new pair of eyes would be appreciated and any improvements are welcome.
~Thanks, ~Eric F:71.20.250.51 (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC))

Fuck peer review, again

1. Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties
2. Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1

I've listed the article Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for peer review.

Help with furthering along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of posting to TFA nominations

I've added Fuck (film) to TFA nominations, discussion is at Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#Fuck_.28film.29. — Cirt (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Archived some threads

I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt (talk) 06:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)