Talk:Seven minutes in heaven

Cutie Game?

Family Guy

Should this article mention the Family Guy episode that had the game in it?

Done Should go for a "in popular culture" section, I think. - quispiam^talk [Anton Nordenfur] 19:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping Uglies?

Should the article clarify on what "bumping uglies" is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben.yarmis (talk • contribs) 02:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Brianna Marie Knights — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.135.130 (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reality

Has anyone ever actually played this game? If so, how did it go?
I mean, in the movie version you end up in the cupboard with Alicia Silverstone, and after 7 minutes the lock jams. In reality I guess you're more likely to find yourself in the company of that fat girl from Moesha. And then the lock jams. Maikel (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rule?

Does anyone have a cite for the rule that precludes full intercourse? --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incoming randallism

xkcd #1002, "Game AIs" (11 Jan 2012), mentioned this, so expect a spike in randalism. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 05:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This might be one of the few appropriate places for an xkcd mention; the other references aren't that notable either. Josiah Stevenson 07:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josiahstevenson (talk • contribs)

Done There should also be some other popular culture references out there that can be inserted into the article. - quispiam^talk [Anton Nordenfur] 19:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an appropiate place to mention xkcd, since the comic strip influences neither the subject nor real life. The fact that the other references aren't notable means we should delete them rather than adding xkcd. Abolen (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who researches popular culture, I'd like to question the notion that popular culture doesn't influence real life. My guess is that the appearance in xkcd has increased the number of people playing the game considerably. I suggest we add the popular culture references back in. Also, the game appears in the movie Shortbus. Voyager640 (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for original researches. Find a reliable source which would support your guess and make sure that the fact you mentioning is notable. Abolen (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Wikipedia policy requiring that every cultural reference be backed up by a reliable source stating its importance. Using editorial judgment as to what's important enough to be included in the article does not constitute original research. I think the "in popular culture" items, including xkcd, should be included. JamesMLane t c 08:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Wikipedia policy that all content shall be backed by a reliable source. Popular culture items, including xkcd, should and will be included, as long as they have influenced subject's form, role, history, public perception, or other noteworthy traits. Unless you provide a reliable source demonstrating how the article's topic had been influenced by the xkcd cartoon (or a movie, or anything else), the latter shall not be mentioned in the article. If the xkcd cartoon indeed had a significant influence on the game's popularity, you will definitely face no difficulties in finding a reliable, attributable mention of that. Abolen (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy is that all content must be backed up by a reliable source, but that means that there must be a source for the truth of any assertion made (such as that xkcd ran the cartoon). It does not mean that there must be a reliable source stating that the fact asserted is not only true but is important enough to be included in a Wikipedia article. That remains a matter of editorial judgment. I prospected a little through Featured Articles (generally thought to have received the community's highest level of scrutiny and approval) and found an instructive example at Troy McClure#Reception and cultural influence. Several of the items in that section follow the model you suggest, in that there's a source referring specifically to the importance of this fictional character or to some aspect related to the article about him. The section also notes, however, that the character was the basis for a popular song. The reliable source provided is a publication reporting on the song and its provenance, but that source gives no indication of "how the article's topic had been influenced by the" song, to quote the criterion you want to introduce. The Wikipedians editing that article used their editorial judgment to conclude that people reading an article about a pop-culture topic (a character on The Simpsons) would be interested to know how the subject of the article had been used in another pop-culture context (a song), even with no showing that the latter use had affected the subject. I think the same is true here -- an article about a pop-culture topic (a teenagers' game) was used in another pop-culture context (a webcomic). (This wouldn't necessarily be the case for a topic that was widely discussed, but it's worth including here because the game is not often mentioned.)

I don't think that such uses are "definitely" always noted, with an assessment of their importance, in another source, as you seem to think. The mention of Ken Jennings led to a posting on his website, so I've added that reference, but I don't think it's particularly valuable to the reader even though it does give some slight indication of the dissemination of the xkcd reference. JamesMLane t c 13:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. This all had been discussed ages ago (since that very time xkcd gained notoriety) and had been refined into WP:XKCD. Ken Jennings and Jeopardy have nothing to do with the subject of the article. Abolen (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you troubled to read the page you linked, you'd see that it's an essay, which "may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints" (emphasis added). In other words, it settles nothing.

Now, with that distraction out of the way, let's return to the merits here. I've pointed out that, contrary to your assertion, no Wikipedia policy or guideline requires that a reliable source attest to the encyclopedic importance of a particular fact. I've given a comparable example from a Featured Article. You haven't answered these arguments. Furthermore, of the editors who've joined the discussion, there is precisely one -- you -- who has commented in opposition to the inclusion, with three (quispiam, Voyager640, and myself) in support, and one (Josiahstevenson) in qualified support ("might be").

I don't feel strongly about the Ken Jennings reference, so I'll defer to you there and leave it out. Please don't delete the remaining content again as long as the opinions on the talk page are in their current status. JamesMLane t c 07:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

xkcd link

A reference to an xkcd webcomic in which the article's topic is mentioned is being added into article. The topic is vaguely mentioned in the cartoon (along with many other subjectes), the cartoon adds nothing to the topic's public percention, neither influences it in any other way. Other media items of the same relevance to the article had been proposed for addition. In my opinion, this makes the article an indiscriminate collection of information and such a piece or trivia should be deleted. This opinion is supported by the authors or WP:IPC and WP:XKCD. A comment on this would be highly appreciated. Abolen (talk) 08:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the reference. It is trivia, and clearly inappropriate when judged by the criteria listed in WP:XKCD (I know it's an essay, not a policy, but it seems quite a reasonable guideline.) The FA section - Troy McClure#Reception and cultural influence - mentioned in #Incoming randallism above is not a fair comparision. That section comprises reviews of the character and one instance of the character influencing peoples language ("... a shorthand way to describe any grossly artificial media figure"). XKCD does not critically review the game, it merely includes a reference to the game as part of a joke. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless a reliable secondary source is produced stating the importance of the comic to the game. Eomund (talk) 03:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Mitch: even as trivia, WP:UNDUE would support deletion. Agree with Eomund: without a reliable source, a controversial trivia does not improve the article. Disagree with James: a reliable source must assert the relationship between this game and the cartoon. jmcw (talk)

Keep Keep it - I came here from the xkcd page, it's important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.48.158 (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is obviously misleading; the appropriate place for it is the talk page of Xkcd —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American game

Every single pop culture reference mentioned here is American. I’m sure similar games are played around the world, but can we get a cite specifying this particular variant as a North American phenomenon? —Wiki Wikardo 19:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which place is better for disambiguation?

Currently there are 2 places where some kind of disambiguation takes place:

A. Everything which is in Seven minutes in heaven (disambiguation) is also in Seven minutes in heaven, mainly in Seven_minutes_in_heaven#In_popular_culture_(sorted_by_year).

B. The products (films, songs, play) all are very close to the game, either by their title or because the game is played or mentioned in the product. Therefore I opt that the product list should remain in the game's article.

C. And I, personally, like the timeline which is given in Seven_minutes_in_heaven#In_popular_culture_(sorted_by_year).

So, maybe, we:

a. can just do without Seven minutes in heaven (disambiguation) or
b. leave the disambiguation page existing, but take the 5 products out of the disambiguation page and rather list, in there, the types of these products, like: "There are several products like: films, songs and plays which contain a mention of "Seven minutes in heaven". A long list is in Seven_minutes_in_heaven#In_popular_culture_(sorted_by_year)."

Steue (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]